Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
That's a weird take on Sunak. I can see several reasons to criticise him, but "entirely inauthentic"?!
He comes across as exactly what he is, the lucky, clever, hard working son of very ambitious immigrants who put him into one of the best schools in the world, and who then went on to be a successful merchant banker (and who married very well). That's exactly what he is, and what he comes across as, and he doesn't try to hide it
In what way does he try to disguise this? He doesn't put on a fake mockney accent like Blair, he doesn't fake-ruffle his hair like Boris, he doesn't pretend to be a massive UKIPy Brexity patriot like Starmer
He's actually one of THE more authentic PMs we've had in recent years
Anyway, I shouldnae worry, Labour are still gonna win
I think he' s quite a poor campaigner and speaker; he comes over as if he's been asked to come into a primary school and enthuse an audience of five year olds about road safety.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
That's a weird take on Sunak. I can see several reasons to criticise him, but "entirely inauthentic"?!
He comes across as exactly what he is, the lucky, clever, hard working son of very ambitious immigrants who put him into one of the best schools in the world, and who then went on to be a successful merchant banker (and who married very well). That's exactly what he is, and what he comes across as, and he doesn't try to hide it
In what way does he try to disguise this? He doesn't put on a fake mockney accent like Blair, he doesn't fake-ruffle his hair like Boris, he doesn't pretend to be a massive UKIPy Brexity patriot like Starmer
He's actually one of THE more authentic PMs we've had in recent years
Anyway, I shouldnae worry, Labour are still gonna win
I think he' s quite a poor campaigner and speaker; he comes over as if he's been asked to come into a primary school and enthuse an audience of five year olds about road safety.
Actually I think that's part of his appeal. I remember someone on PB saying he came across like a Blue Peter presenter. It's not necessarily a bad look.
I'm beginning to think that Rishi may prevent a Labour landslide and be able to stay on as LOTO. However a change of Govt is nailed on. Boris and Liz did far too much damage for the Tories to have a chance of winning.
I think his Cbeebies/fun youth pastor style of enforced enthusiasm might not sit well with cynical middle aged farts like ourselves and many other political anoraks, but can be reasonably effective for people who are less engaged, even if the tenor of the times is dour gloom. People used to praise his communicative abilities, and it wasn't solely because he was mostly saying how much money was being dished out.
Jesus Christ – what a ludicrous niagara of overanalysis for a midterm poll that is Con +2. If one appears in the next ten that is MOE in the other direction it will be widely ignored.
Get a life.
Why do you always come across as so impatient and intolerant?
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
At the end of the day, it's not going to come down to what people think of Sunak or Starmer; both are grey technocrats - competent, articulate, boring.
Come the general election people will ask themselves: do I feel better off, does the country feel in better shape, than five years ago?
And the answer is going to be a resounding 'No'.
And the next question will be "who has the solutions to make the next five years better than the last five years"?
True. But if the answer is 'neither', then the fresher side may come out on top by default.
Or "better the devil you know" might.
This could be avoided, of course, if Sir Keir could come up with some sensible policies...
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Simple answer - because younger voters, like older voters, are stupid.
Longer answer - because even if it is true peoples' political views are a complex and contradictory hodgepotch and they may not believe it, they may not prioritise it over some other issue more central to their identity, or they may not see the connection between different beliefs.
The other answer is that it doesn't necessarily mean house prices going up. It would depend on the net number of those coming in and going out - as well as the number of properties available to let or to buy. As poorer EU member states get wealthier, for example, there is less incentive for people to leave them to look for work.
Hung parliament, minority Labour administration with Lib Dem support still a reasonable possibility, methinks ; though I think somewhere between a narrow overall Labour majority , and all the way up to the fifties, is the more likely.
Ed Davey nailed on as Deputy PM after the next election.
Good lord - that's a thought for Tory waverers to bring them back!
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Simple answer - because younger voters, like older voters, are stupid.
Longer answer - because even if it is true peoples' political views are a complex and contradictory hodgepotch and they may not believe it, they may not prioritise it over some other issue more central to their identity, or they may not see the connection between different beliefs.
The way I tend to look at it is the people who had more experience of the EU and experience of pre EU voted in on the 74 referendum then having experienced the EU went hell no....people who knew nothing but the EU and no experience of life outside decided to suck at mummys teat for safety
It's possible that's the reason, but we're all suckers for moral superiority.
I think it's much more simple than that.
Young people - especially young people in big cities - are much more likely to have friends who are EU nationals. They saw (and maybe even see) repudiation of the EU as repudiation of people they know and like. They don't think about the EU, they think about the EU citizens they like, and to them "Out", meant saying "Get Out" to their friends.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
At the end of the day, it's not going to come down to what people think of Sunak or Starmer; both are grey technocrats - competent, articulate, boring.
Come the general election people will ask themselves: do I feel better off, does the country feel in better shape, than five years ago?
And the answer is going to be a resounding 'No'.
And the next question will be "who has the solutions to make the next five years better than the last five years"?
True. But if the answer is 'neither', then the fresher side may come out on top by default.
Or "better the devil you know" might.
It might, but the weight of 14 years in office puts a burden on that. Not insurmountable, certainly from the starting position, but 'Don't risk it because of what X did 14 years ago' is not massively persuasive - remember that in 2010 Brown was trying the same thing.
Indeed, the logic inevitably suggests never changing parties - if things are going well why would you switch? If things are going badly, well, this is no time for a novice at the helm, better the devil you know.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Not only that but FoM makes it harder to plan for services from water to schools to doctors....how many are coming in the next few years....who knows as we can't say no....lets remember when we were told only about 13000 eastern europeans would come back in 2002/2003. Frankly civil service estimates aren't worth anything more than a piece of paper to wipe your arse with. They certainly have no relation to reality
Ah, so that's why planning for schools and doctors has been so stunningly successful since Brexit.
Did I claim it had? Sadly training up sufficient doctors and teachers has a long lead time and neither tories nor labour seem interested in addressing it, nor our water problems, power problems etc.
You think a labour government in 2024 is going to sort any problems in the country....well then I have a bridge to sell you. They have no answers, the tories have no answers, the ld have no answers because they are all wedded to the state does all this stuff and we cant cut any of it and we cant raise tax.
I keep saying I agree what we do should be fully funded so you have a choice
a) cut what the state does but properly fund it b) raise taxes enough to full fund everything we currently do but then the basic rate would probably be at 70%
If the LibDems have any sense, in the event of a hung parliament, they'll demand a referendum on single market membership in exchange for support, and not let themselves be bamboozled.
Which is a total waste of time because a) it will lose probably when it is brought to the fore that means fom and b) even if it wins it is not within the governement of the uk's purview to do it the eu would have to agree to us rejoining the single market and they likely won't
The deal would be single market/free movement back again. I think it would win.
Think that all you like but people wont vote for a return to Fom
Starmer is not going to offer wage deflation in low end jobs, if he wins back the Red Wall.
Precisely only lib dems think its popular. I would be all for single market without FoM
It might be what you think but I'm pretty sure Dvey isn't going to argue for a referendum on anything as a "price" for joining with Labour (and it won't be a 2010-15 Coalition under any circumstances).
It always helps Conservatives to "lump in" the LDs with Labour - perhaps Sunak should be thinking what he could offer the LDs for supporting the continuation of a minority Conservative Government.
I am not a tory supporter however, I was merely point out to oracle a referendum on SM plus fom is largely going to be waste of time. First you have to win it which I don't think you will if FoM is involved, second if you win it you have to get the EU to agree and I don't think they will
I know you're no Tory - you're certainly no Lib Dem either. The fact is we've left the European Union - whether we ever go back I can't say. You've highlighted the central problem which is you can't have the Single Market without Freedom of Movement (it's four Freedoms, not three).
Supporting unfettered migration is up there with arguing for tax rises - there's an economic logic to it but no one will ever vote for it.
Sunak strikes me as an above average PM, certainly by recent standards. Of course he is charge of a party that has gone demented so he has to do some daft things like have Braverman as Home Sec and the Rwanda nonsense but generally he seems bright, measured and focused on what needs to be done. I think he deserves more that 2 years as PM. Don’t think he is going to get it though.
If the LibDems have any sense, in the event of a hung parliament, they'll demand a referendum on single market membership in exchange for support, and not let themselves be bamboozled.
Which is a total waste of time because a) it will lose probably when it is brought to the fore that means fom and b) even if it wins it is not within the governement of the uk's purview to do it the eu would have to agree to us rejoining the single market and they likely won't
The deal would be single market/free movement back again. I think it would win.
Think that all you like but people wont vote for a return to Fom
Starmer is not going to offer wage deflation in low end jobs, if he wins back the Red Wall.
Precisely only lib dems think its popular. I would be all for single market without FoM
It might be what you think but I'm pretty sure Dvey isn't going to argue for a referendum on anything as a "price" for joining with Labour (and it won't be a 2010-15 Coalition under any circumstances).
It always helps Conservatives to "lump in" the LDs with Labour - perhaps Sunak should be thinking what he could offer the LDs for supporting the continuation of a minority Conservative Government.
I am not a tory supporter however, I was merely point out to oracle a referendum on SM plus fom is largely going to be waste of time. First you have to win it which I don't think you will if FoM is involved, second if you win it you have to get the EU to agree and I don't think they will
I know you're no Tory - you're certainly no Lib Dem either. The fact is we've left the European Union - whether we ever go back I can't say. You've highlighted the central problem which is you can't have the Single Market without Freedom of Movement (it's four Freedoms, not three).
Supporting unfettered migration is up there with arguing for tax rises - there's an economic logic to it but no one will ever vote for it.
I would take it as defamation if anyone ever accused me as being a lib dem
Taranto accuses ProPublica of getting some facts wrong, and misunderstanding the rules. In the past I have found him to be a competent, honest journalist, but I haven't followed this story closely enough to have an opinion on who is right.
But I will say that leftwing journalists in the US have become less confined to mere facts, in recent years. (Example: the 1619 project.) Most haven't reached Tucker Carlson levels, but they are heading in his direction.
What is his defence of Thames accepting annually, and undeclared, several hundred thousand dollars of hospitality ?
Oh, right, he doesn’t even mention it.
But notable that the usually paywalled WSJ is spamming this link across Twitter.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Simple answer - because younger voters, like older voters, are stupid.
Longer answer - because even if it is true peoples' political views are a complex and contradictory hodgepotch and they may not believe it, they may not prioritise it over some other issue more central to their identity, or they may not see the connection between different beliefs.
The way I tend to look at it is the people who had more experience of the EU and experience of pre EU voted in on the 74 referendum then having experienced the EU went hell no....people who knew nothing but the EU and no experience of life outside decided to suck at mummys teat for safety
Many younger people subscribe to some interesting theories/memes about housing
1) There is no shortage - it’s all racist lies/Tory landlords ramping prices 2) There are enough empty flats owned by Evul Furiners to house everyone. Etc
The common theme in many of these that no extra house building is required (no environmental concerns), and the problem could be fixed with strike of a pen.
Sunak strikes me as an above average PM, certainly by recent standards. Of course he is charge of a party that has gone demented so he has to do some daft things like have Braverman as Home Sec and the Rwanda nonsense but generally he seems bright, measured and focused on what needs to be done. I think he deserves more that 2 years as PM. Don’t think he is going to get it though.
I don't think he'll get it either, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to think he does not want to do some things.
He didn't have to have Braverman as Home Secretary - if he had to reward her by bringing her back he could have given her something else, since policy wise the position was set. Apart from his one answer on the ECHR, is there much indication he is not fully on board with that side of things?
The weird thing about his more steady approach is that it almost feels like we needed him in charge much earlier, even as he has been super rushed into the top job.
He may well go from new MP to PM to backbencher inside 10 years, a period which traditionally you might be just getting your feet under the table.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Young people are perhaps also aware that their freedom of movement has been taken away by people who enjoyed it for themselves when they were younger.
I wonder whether the Tories might gain 2 or 3 seats in Scotland at the next election from the SNP, even if the swing is from SNP to Labour, because Labour are in a distant 3rd place in many SNP/Tory marginals.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is outnumbered.
That the younger generation doesn’t see the link between FoM and the unaffordabililty of housing, is one of the mysteries of modern politics.
There’s not that strong a link - something in the shared rental space but not in house prices. The latter is more low interest rates and lack of alternatives
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is outnumbered.
That the younger generation doesn’t see the link between FoM and the unaffordabililty of housing, is one of the mysteries of modern politics.
There’s not that strong a link - something in the shared rental space but not in house prices. The latter is more low interest rates and lack of alternatives
It’s down to not building anywhere near enough properties. In all categories of housing.
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
I didn't see everything but I think it was the oil wankers rather than the animal wankers this time.
Yes it was. Videos on Twitter now. One defaced a table, the other couldn’t get on the table and was stopped by the guy with the gloves who handles the balls.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
A while ago we had cases where for example single mothers renting a 2 bedroom flat in expensive area's such as chelsea where people were saying they should move to somewhere cheaper rather than expect the taxpayer to fund the expensive rent. The lefties opposed this saying its not fair making them move away from their support network.
Here we have a leftie saying old people should downsize which will often involve them moving away from homes they have lived in most of their lives and away from the support network they built up from years living in the same location.
Why is it wrong to make a single mother move so she is not costing the tax payer so much but right to force an elderly person to move that is not costing the tax payer anything?
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
Basically they've got a Henry Hoover on it. Honest.
If it’s a dry powder of large particles - sand or salt, rather than flour or washing powder - they might get away with Henry and friends. Wouldn’t want to be the referee though.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Reality check. The vast majority of younger voters think of Europe as a beach, a bar and getting their rocks off. They really don't think about the 'economy' or 'culture'. They have no clue as to either the real Erasmus or the other one.
Sunak strikes me as an above average PM, certainly by recent standards. Of course he is charge of a party that has gone demented so he has to do some daft things like have Braverman as Home Sec and the Rwanda nonsense but generally he seems bright, measured and focused on what needs to be done. I think he deserves more that 2 years as PM. Don’t think he is going to get it though.
I believe Sunak is happy to have Braverman as Home Sec because they are mostly on the same page. Suggestions that he's in some way forced to keep her are wide of the mark IMO.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
Replace “you” with “I” in that, and it would be more accurate.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is outnumbered.
That the younger generation doesn’t see the link between FoM and the unaffordabililty of housing, is one of the mysteries of modern politics.
There’s not that strong a link - something in the shared rental space but not in house prices. The latter is more low interest rates and lack of alternatives
It’s down to not building anywhere near enough properties. In all categories of housing.
The denial on this is fascinating.
Indeed. Either UK cities embrace the green-skyscraper future many architects fondly imagine, the countryside gets trashed, or the problem gets worse.
If the LibDems have any sense, in the event of a hung parliament, they'll demand a referendum on single market membership in exchange for support, and not let themselves be bamboozled.
Which is a total waste of time because a) it will lose probably when it is brought to the fore that means fom and b) even if it wins it is not within the governement of the uk's purview to do it the eu would have to agree to us rejoining the single market and they likely won't
The deal would be single market/free movement back again. I think it would win.
Think that all you like but people wont vote for a return to Fom
Starmer is not going to offer wage deflation in low end jobs, if he wins back the Red Wall.
Precisely only lib dems think its popular. I would be all for single market without FoM
It might be what you think but I'm pretty sure Dvey isn't going to argue for a referendum on anything as a "price" for joining with Labour (and it won't be a 2010-15 Coalition under any circumstances).
It always helps Conservatives to "lump in" the LDs with Labour - perhaps Sunak should be thinking what he could offer the LDs for supporting the continuation of a minority Conservative Government.
I am not a tory supporter however, I was merely point out to oracle a referendum on SM plus fom is largely going to be waste of time. First you have to win it which I don't think you will if FoM is involved, second if you win it you have to get the EU to agree and I don't think they will
I know you're no Tory - you're certainly no Lib Dem either. The fact is we've left the European Union - whether we ever go back I can't say. You've highlighted the central problem which is you can't have the Single Market without Freedom of Movement (it's four Freedoms, not three).
Supporting unfettered migration is up there with arguing for tax rises - there's an economic logic to it but no one will ever vote for it.
Nearly half of voters did in 2016. If immigration remains high then FoM becomes something that can be sold as a benefit - people are gaining something they do not currently have - especially if the economy continues to splutter. But it's all academic as there's not going to be any kind of vote on this for many years, if at all.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Reality check. The vast majority of younger voters think of Europe as a beach, a bar and getting their rocks off. They really don't think about the 'economy' or 'culture'. They have no clue as to either the real Erasmus or the other one.
How do you know? My kids and their friends seem to see it as something on their doorstep that looks very like the UK and where everyone their age speaks English. There has been a huge erosion of difference over the last 30 years. Club 18-30 no longer exists.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Young people are perhaps also aware that their freedom of movement has been taken away by people who enjoyed it for themselves when they were younger.
Yes, this feeds into the current generational anger on many issues. It's not just amongst middle-class professionals either, from what I've seen of various polls.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
How can you be so insensitive???
A WHITE ball goes around hitting and then burying COLORED balls?
Can you get a sport that is more evidently racist???
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
Basically they've got a Henry Hoover on it. Honest.
If it’s a dry powder of large particles - sand or salt, rather than flour or washing powder - they might get away with Henry and friends. Wouldn’t want to be the referee though.
The players are still off at the moment, presumably whilst they work on the fouled table and come to a decision on whether it can be made playable tonight. I'm assuming that the one where the attention seeker was foiled is good to go, but they can't come back there either whilst there's all that commotion on the other side of the screen.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Young people are perhaps also aware that their freedom of movement has been taken away by people who enjoyed it for themselves when they were younger.
Yes, this feeds into the current generational anger on many issues. It's not just amongst middle-class professionals, either, from what I can see of the polls.
If young people are so offended why do they continue to emigrate to non eu countries in far larger numbers. No one wants to move to a stagnant backwater. It would be like moving to living in a hut on stilts in a deep south bayou
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
Presumably it's not about a complaint with snooker, it's about gaining attention for their cause. It's worked - I'm not even watching it and I've heard about it and what their cause is.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
All those international tournaments mean lots of flying?
But if it's JSO I suspect you're close with the 'are they insane?'
Sunak strikes me as an above average PM, certainly by recent standards. Of course he is charge of a party that has gone demented so he has to do some daft things like have Braverman as Home Sec and the Rwanda nonsense but generally he seems bright, measured and focused on what needs to be done. I think he deserves more that 2 years as PM. Don’t think he is going to get it though.
I believe Sunak is happy to have Braverman as Home Sec because they are mostly on the same page. Suggestions that he's in some way forced to keep her are wide of the mark IMO.
I think more likely it's about old-fashioned party management. Keeps old guard MPs happier than if it was someone else as Home Sec. Protects a flank. Acts as a lightning rod. Etc.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Because the decades long failure of government with regard to house building is far more relevant than FoM.
Why is it that PBers manage to be completely blind to that ? It’s as though they are as blinkered as the young they criticise.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
How can you be so insensitive???
A WHITE ball goes around hitting and then burying COLORED balls?
Can you get a sport that is more evidently racist???
Yes but you'd think they'd approve of the green baize.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Young people are perhaps also aware that their freedom of movement has been taken away by people who enjoyed it for themselves when they were younger.
I find the loss of freedom of movement one of the more interesting complaints of Brexit. How many young Brits actually used it to work round Europe as opposed to going on holiday (still fine)? Most Brits seem to have gap years in SE Asia, NZ, Australia etc.
In addition, academic exchange is still happening. I am hosting a Danish a student at the moment and we exoect to send around 15 of our final years overseas for a semester in the autumn, out of around 60 students.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is outnumbered.
That the younger generation doesn’t see the link between FoM and the unaffordabililty of housing, is one of the mysteries of modern politics.
There’s not that strong a link - something in the shared rental space but not in house prices. The latter is more low interest rates and lack of alternatives
It’s down to not building anywhere near enough properties. In all categories of housing.
The denial on this is fascinating.
There’s always a trade off (the issue is the increase in the number of family units needed with the divorce rate - you need excess bedrooms that are not used every night). FoM was more about a slice of shared houses residents who were here for a limited period
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
Basically they've got a Henry Hoover on it. Honest.
If it’s a dry powder of large particles - sand or salt, rather than flour or washing powder - they might get away with Henry and friends. Wouldn’t want to be the referee though.
The players are still off at the moment, presumably whilst they work on the fouled table and come to a decision on whether it can be made playable tonight. I'm assuming that the one where the attention seeker was foiled is good to go, but they can't come back there either whilst there's all that commotion on the other side of the screen.
I found a Eurosport stream now, thanks for the updates! Looks like one table is likely out of action for the evening, but the other is okay.
I wonder whether the Tories might gain 2 or 3 seats in Scotland at the next election from the SNP, even if the swing is from SNP to Labour, because Labour are in a distant 3rd place in many SNP/Tory marginals.
The Conservatives should gain Gordon next time around, and Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock is a decent shout. It's not impossible for them to gain Angus too, although that's a harder ask.
So, I'd say +1 is easy, +2 likely, +3 is possible, any more (like Stirling) is extremely difficult.
I wonder whether the Tories might gain 2 or 3 seats in Scotland at the next election from the SNP, even if the swing is from SNP to Labour, because Labour are in a distant 3rd place in many SNP/Tory marginals.
That's not impossible. The Tory/SNP marginals are in rural small-town areas. Socially conservative. Precisely the places where Yousaf-style wokeish nationalism will be going down like a lead balloon. The Tories only need to do less badly than the SNP to hold their seats and conceivably pick up a few.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
How can you be so insensitive???
A WHITE ball goes around hitting and then burying COLORED balls?
Can you get a sport that is more evidently racist???
It wasn't when it was on black and white television.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Because the decades long failure of government with regard to house building is far more relevant than FoM.
Why is it that PBers manage to be completely blind to that ? It’s as though they are as blinkered as the young they criticise.
The argument seems to be that we have been building 100k homes too few for the last 20 years. Which rather raises the question of where the f*** we would put another 2m houses.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
Presumably it's not about a complaint with snooker, it's about gaining attention for their cause. It's worked - I'm not even watching it and I've heard about it and what their cause is.
I have not seen what their cause is, and don’t care. I think snooker is a poor target.
Sunak strikes me as an above average PM, certainly by recent standards. Of course he is charge of a party that has gone demented so he has to do some daft things like have Braverman as Home Sec and the Rwanda nonsense but generally he seems bright, measured and focused on what needs to be done. I think he deserves more that 2 years as PM. Don’t think he is going to get it though.
I don't think he'll get it either, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to think he does not want to do some things.
He didn't have to have Braverman as Home Secretary - if he had to reward her by bringing her back he could have given her something else, since policy wise the position was set. Apart from his one answer on the ECHR, is there much indication he is not fully on board with that side of things?
The weird thing about his more steady approach is that it almost feels like we needed him in charge much earlier, even as he has been super rushed into the top job.
He may well go from new MP to PM to backbencher inside 10 years, a period which traditionally you might be just getting your feet under the table.
See you made the same comment about Sunak. He's pleasant, smart, hard working and at the personal level qualified to be PM.
But his political views are Genghis Khan. I'm not sure people would really embrace them if they see through the veneer. Starmer is a very different character.
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I was thinking of tying them to the table and playing with 2 pinks.
What offence has the protestor committed? Criminal damage I guess?
What will the penalty be wonder - not much if anything? And he'll no doubt get pats on the back and kudos for what he did from his compatriots - and he's signalled his "virtue" on the tele.
So in the end the stunt was a cheap, effective way to disrupt and give their message. What can be done?
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
Presumably it's not about a complaint with snooker, it's about gaining attention for their cause. It's worked - I'm not even watching it and I've heard about it and what their cause is.
I have not seen what their cause is, and don’t care. I think snooker is a poor target.
Certainly proved it's a soft target, if nothing else. Hope other sports/events are paying attention.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Because the decades long failure of government with regard to house building is far more relevant than FoM.
Why is it that PBers manage to be completely blind to that ? It’s as though they are as blinkered as the young they criticise.
The argument seems to be that we have been building 100k homes too few for the last 20 years. Which rather raises the question of where the f*** we would put another 2m houses.
In the sky, with greenery, like many architects want.
A pipedream ? Perhaps, but many other countries and cities are looking at these kind of sustainable high-rise architecture ideas.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is outnumbered.
That the younger generation doesn’t see the link between FoM and the unaffordabililty of housing, is one of the mysteries of modern politics.
There’s not that strong a link - something in the shared rental space but not in house prices. The latter is more low interest rates and lack of alternatives
It’s down to not building anywhere near enough properties. In all categories of housing.
The denial on this is fascinating.
There’s always a trade off (the issue is the increase in the number of family units needed with the divorce rate - you need excess bedrooms that are not used every night). FoM was more about a slice of shared houses residents who were here for a limited period
You have large numbers of properties which are HMO. At this point, someone will say - but there’s only x HMOs registered in the country.
Most landlords don’t - for one thing there mortgage issues. Often it breaks building covenants on new blocks of flats.
It has now got to the point where, on new built flats in London, it is quite standard to find each bedroom door fitted with a deadbolt lock. As built.
Sunak strikes me as an above average PM, certainly by recent standards. Of course he is charge of a party that has gone demented so he has to do some daft things like have Braverman as Home Sec and the Rwanda nonsense but generally he seems bright, measured and focused on what needs to be done. I think he deserves more that 2 years as PM. Don’t think he is going to get it though.
I believe Sunak is happy to have Braverman as Home Sec because they are mostly on the same page. Suggestions that he's in some way forced to keep her are wide of the mark IMO.
I think more likely it's about old-fashioned party management. Keeps old guard MPs happier than if it was someone else as Home Sec. Protects a flank. Acts as a lightning rod. Etc.
I disagree. I think Sunak believes more or less the same things as Braverman. That's the main reason she's Home Sec
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
Presumably it's not about a complaint with snooker, it's about gaining attention for their cause. It's worked - I'm not even watching it and I've heard about it and what their cause is.
I have not seen what their cause is, and don’t care. I think snooker is a poor target.
You don't care what their cause is but they do - pissing off snooker fans (even ones sympathetic to their cause) by getting in the news is a logical trade off, from their point of view.
Many younger people subscribe to some interesting theories/memes about housing
1) There is no shortage - it’s all racist lies/Tory landlords ramping prices 2) There are enough empty flats owned by Evul Furiners to house everyone. Etc
The common theme in many of these that no extra house building is required (no environmental concerns), and the problem could be fixed with strike of a pen.
If the was no shortage house prices sure as hell would be a lot lower, because people in Britain aren't getting quality housing for their money.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Young people are perhaps also aware that their freedom of movement has been taken away by people who enjoyed it for themselves when they were younger.
I find the loss of freedom of movement one of the more interesting complaints of Brexit. How many young Brits actually used it to work round Europe as opposed to going on holiday (still fine)? Most Brits seem to have gap years in SE Asia, NZ, Australia etc.
In addition, academic exchange is still happening. I am hosting a Danish a student at the moment and we exoect to send around 15 of our final years overseas for a semester in the autumn, out of around 60 students.
Having stuff taken away from you, even if you don't intend to use it, can be pretty galling. I have lots of rights that I do not use that I would not like to lose. I can see why knowing that you used to be able to jump on a plane and look for a job for a year or forever or for some time in between in 30 European countries and that you no longer can might be quite provoking.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
How can you be so insensitive???
A WHITE ball goes around hitting and then burying COLORED balls?
Can you get a sport that is more evidently racist???
It wasn't when it was on black and white television.
“ And for those watching in black and white the pink is the ball immediately behind the brown.” Oh they just don’t make TV like that anymore.
I wonder whether the Tories might gain 2 or 3 seats in Scotland at the next election from the SNP, even if the swing is from SNP to Labour, because Labour are in a distant 3rd place in many SNP/Tory marginals.
The Conservatives should gain Gordon next time around, and Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock is a decent shout. It's not impossible for them to gain Angus too, although that's a harder ask.
So, I'd say +1 is easy, +2 likely, +3 is possible, any more (like Stirling) is extremely difficult.
I think Gordon has become Aberdeenshire Central and due to boundary changes been ntionally nudged into the Tory column. However Douglas Ross's Moray has been split up with the larger western part merged with a chunk of Highland and consequently become notionally SNP. That will be an interesting one.
East Renfrewshire is a possible pick-up given how well Jackson Carlaw did in the admittedly better-for-the -Tories equivalent Holyrood seat. And I believe the revised Aberdeen South is better for the Tories though I would imagine Stephen Flynn would be difficult to knock out given his profile as SNP Westminster leader.
In a way it's rather like a streaker at the footy. That was partly dealt with by refusing to point the cameras at the miscreant, thus reducing the incentive to do it.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
How can you be so insensitive???
A WHITE ball goes around hitting and then burying COLORED balls?
Can you get a sport that is more evidently racist???
It wasn't when it was on black and white television.
“…and for those of you who are watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green“ - Ted Lowe, up there with the best quotes from Murray Walker or Brian Johnstone.
Play looks like it’s about to resume, on one table and with the screen up.
What is the complaint they have with snooker....are they insane it is probably one of the most innocuos sports...no animals involved, no huge CO2 emissions....my gast is totally flabbered
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Because the decades long failure of government with regard to house building is far more relevant than FoM.
Why is it that PBers manage to be completely blind to that ? It’s as though they are as blinkered as the young they criticise.
Yes. It's looking at things in the round. The young have more of a direct stake in pursuing policies that are more growth-friendly - as unlike older people, who may have accrued assets and/or a pension that has been protected while working-age incomes have declined in real terms. Freedom of Movement, or rather the EU or SM membership that comes with it, is seen as both good in liberal terms and economically beneficial. And given we're not exactly going to pull up the drawbridge as our economy and social contract needs some immigration to function, can see that really the only way to end the housing crisis is to build lots more and immigration is marginal and a red herring.
It's entirely rational self-interest - just as boomers have supported policies that benefit their interests at the expense of the young for more than a decade, resulting in major generational divides.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
A while ago we had cases where for example single mothers renting a 2 bedroom flat in expensive area's such as chelsea where people were saying they should move to somewhere cheaper rather than expect the taxpayer to fund the expensive rent. The lefties opposed this saying its not fair making them move away from their support network.
Here we have a leftie saying old people should downsize which will often involve them moving away from homes they have lived in most of their lives and away from the support network they built up from years living in the same location.
Why is it wrong to make a single mother move so she is not costing the tax payer so much but right to force an elderly person to move that is not costing the tax payer anything?
Gosh, I don't think I've ever been called a lefty before. Boring old One Nation Cameroon, me. But times change and we change with the times.
And since you ask...
There's no particular reason why we can't all be pavillioned in splendor. It's just that, some time ago, we unconsciously collectively took a decision to stop building enough houses and infrastructure. My fundamental grouse is with those who have a nice place to live denying those opportunities to others.
However, if we have got a roughly finite housing stock, then it's totally legitimate to ask if we are using it the right way, because it's clearly not the case right now.
And as for the taxpayer question, there's more than one way government transfers money out of people's pockets. Taxes are one, sure, but so is stupidly inflated house prices. Had the booms under Lawson and Brown (nicely bi-partisan, I hope) not happened, British people would have a lot more spare cash for other stuff.
Many younger people subscribe to some interesting theories/memes about housing
1) There is no shortage - it’s all racist lies/Tory landlords ramping prices 2) There are enough empty flats owned by Evul Furiners to house everyone. Etc
The common theme in many of these that no extra house building is required (no environmental concerns), and the problem could be fixed with strike of a pen.
If the was no shortage house prices sure as hell would be a lot lower, because people in Britain aren't getting quality housing for their money.
People in britain aren't getting quality anything for there money. Housing is getting worse, for every pound we put extra in the public sector we seem to get at most 50p in better services if at all. We pay more and more for utilities and transport while we get more potholes and less trains and buses
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is outnumbered.
That the younger generation doesn’t see the link between FoM and the unaffordabililty of housing, is one of the mysteries of modern politics.
There’s not that strong a link - something in the shared rental space but not in house prices. The latter is more low interest rates and lack of alternatives
It’s down to not building anywhere near enough properties. In all categories of housing.
The denial on this is fascinating.
It's more complex than that.
The big increase in house prices happened before widespread EU immigration. Between 1992 and 2004, the index of prices of to incomes rose from 4x to just under 8x. In the last 18 years, it's gone up to just a little more than 9x.
Why did prices soar between 1992 and 2004? Because interest rates collapsed, and housing became more theoretically affordable. People buy based on monthly payments, and the collapse of interest rates from 15% to 4%, combined with banks being willing to lend ever more, meant that there was enormous increase in demand for property.
And you then had a multiplier effect: people had made big gains on properties, and could therefore buy more expensive properties because of the big gains they'd made. (Meaning more deposits, meaning banks would lend them more.)
Now, should we build more properties?
Yes.
But building costs have gone through the roof. It's very hard to build new properties for the kind of money that enables developers to make decent profits. And interest rates rising makes it harder for developers too. Let's say they're now borrowing at 7%, and that it takes three years to build a property. That means they need to make a much bigger margin to even absorb the interest costs on borrowing to build.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
1) Because like most people they deal with policies one at a time, which allows everyone to have beliefs which when put together are unicorns. (Like low taxes and excellent public services).
2) Because the complexity of the interlocking facts which give rise to chunks of reality, even little chunks, are mindblowingly incomprehensible.
3) Because people are bad at linking the individual and the collective effects of things.
4) Because they are young.
5) Because many younger voters, even working-class ones, seem to look at Europe very differently. They will be thinking about the poor comparative state of the British economy compared to our northern European neighbours, and job opportunities abroad, as much as the impact at home. The Auf Wiedersehen Pet effect at another time of UK stagnation and under-performance, like the early '80s.
Because the decades long failure of government with regard to house building is far more relevant than FoM.
Why is it that PBers manage to be completely blind to that ? It’s as though they are as blinkered as the young they criticise.
The argument seems to be that we have been building 100k homes too few for the last 20 years. Which rather raises the question of where the f*** we would put another 2m houses.
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I was thinking of tying them to the table and playing with 2 pinks.
What offence has the protestor committed? Criminal damage I guess?
What will the penalty be wonder - not much if anything? And he'll no doubt get pats on the back and kudos for what he did from his compatriots - and he's signalled his "virtue" on the tele.
So in the end the stunt was a cheap, effective way to disrupt and give their message. What can be done?
A quick search confirms that the Boat Race swimmer from some years back got jail, so there's some hope.
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I was thinking of tying them to the table and playing with 2 pinks.
What offence has the protestor committed? Criminal damage I guess?
What will the penalty be wonder - not much if anything? And he'll no doubt get pats on the back and kudos for what he did from his compatriots - and he's signalled his "virtue" on the tele.
So in the end the stunt was a cheap, effective way to disrupt and give their message. What can be done?
A quick search confirms that the Boat Race swimmer from some years back got jail, so there's some hope.
The idiots at Silverstone last year got suspended sentences and community service, having been convicted by a jury at the Crown Court. Sadly, judges appear to be taking an increasingly lenient stance towards ever more extreme forms of protest.
Fair play to Mark Allen in the snooker, going back out and completing a century break following the interruption.
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Young people are perhaps also aware that their freedom of movement has been taken away by people who enjoyed it for themselves when they were younger.
I find the loss of freedom of movement one of the more interesting complaints of Brexit. How many young Brits actually used it to work round Europe as opposed to going on holiday (still fine)? Most Brits seem to have gap years in SE Asia, NZ, Australia etc.
In addition, academic exchange is still happening. I am hosting a Danish a student at the moment and we exoect to send around 15 of our final years overseas for a semester in the autumn, out of around 60 students.
Having stuff taken away from you, even if you don't intend to use it, can be pretty galling. I have lots of rights that I do not use that I would not like to lose. I can see why knowing that you used to be able to jump on a plane and look for a job for a year or forever or for some time in between in 30 European countries and that you no longer can might be quite provoking.
Maybe, but the point still stands. Almost none of them ever did. I assume you can also get work visas to work in other European countries too.
I’d much rather we hadn’t brexited, and kept both the SM and FoM, and hopefully in the (near) future we can align as close as possible to that state. But on the whole far more Europeans used the FoM to come to the U.K. than ever went the other way.
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I was thinking of tying them to the table and playing with 2 pinks.
What offence has the protestor committed? Criminal damage I guess?
What will the penalty be wonder - not much if anything? And he'll no doubt get pats on the back and kudos for what he did from his compatriots - and he's signalled his "virtue" on the tele.
So in the end the stunt was a cheap, effective way to disrupt and give their message. What can be done?
A quick search confirms that the Boat Race swimmer from some years back got jail, so there's some hope.
That rather bizarre individual who got on the track for the British GP all those years ago got time too.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
At the end of the day, it's not going to come down to what people think of Sunak or Starmer; both are grey technocrats - competent, articulate, boring.
Come the general election people will ask themselves: do I feel better off, does the country feel in better shape, than five years ago?
And the answer is going to be a resounding 'No'.
And the next question will be "who has the solutions to make the next five years better than the last five years"?
True. But if the answer is 'neither', then the fresher side may come out on top by default.
Or "better the devil you know" might.
This could be avoided, of course, if Sir Keir could come up with some sensible policies...
How will Starmer manage to respond the grandeur and ambition of Sunak’s vision of slightly more maths at school hdelivered by teachers that don’t exist)? When I heard Sunak speak, I was transported back to Wilson’s white heat of technology, or JFK’s “We choose to go to the Moon…” speech.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
That's a weird take on Sunak. I can see several reasons to criticise him, but "entirely inauthentic"?!
He comes across as exactly what he is, the lucky, clever, hard working son of very ambitious immigrants who put him into one of the best schools in the world, and who then went on to be a successful merchant banker (and who married very well). That's exactly what he is, and what he comes across as, and he doesn't try to hide it
In what way does he try to disguise this? He doesn't put on a fake mockney accent like Blair, he doesn't fake-ruffle his hair like Boris, he doesn't pretend to be a massive UKIPy Brexity patriot like Starmer
He's actually one of THE more authentic PMs we've had in recent years
Anyway, I shouldnae worry, Labour are still gonna win
I think he' s quite a poor campaigner and speaker; he comes over as if he's been asked to come into a primary school and enthuse an audience of five year olds about road safety.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
That's a weird take on Sunak. I can see several reasons to criticise him, but "entirely inauthentic"?!
He comes across as exactly what he is, the lucky, clever, hard working son of very ambitious immigrants who put him into one of the best schools in the world, and who then went on to be a successful merchant banker (and who married very well). That's exactly what he is, and what he comes across as, and he doesn't try to hide it
In what way does he try to disguise this? He doesn't put on a fake mockney accent like Blair, he doesn't fake-ruffle his hair like Boris, he doesn't pretend to be a massive UKIPy Brexity patriot like Starmer
He's actually one of THE more authentic PMs we've had in recent years
Anyway, I shouldnae worry, Labour are still gonna win
I think he' s quite a poor campaigner and speaker; he comes over as if he's been asked to come into a primary school and enthuse an audience of five year olds about road safety.
Actually I think that's part of his appeal. I remember someone on PB saying he came across like a Blue Peter presenter. It's not necessarily a bad look.
I'm beginning to think that Rishi may prevent a Labour landslide and be able to stay on as LOTO. However a change of Govt is nailed on. Boris and Liz did far too much damage for the Tories to have a chance of winning.
1. A good Blue Peter presenter conveys genuine enthusiam about a shitting Elephant or whatever they're presenting that comes across to the audience. That's not Sunak, his schtick is irritatingly patronising, which is why he polled progressively worse during the leadership campaign. Speaking to your audience as if they're vegetables is a form of projection - a truly intelligent speaker can argue their point lucidly and comprehendably to any audience.
2. Hahahah, Sunak loses the election for the Tories and Sunakism survives - nothing wrong with fantasising occasionally as long as it doesn't become habitual.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
At the end of the day, it's not going to come down to what people think of Sunak or Starmer; both are grey technocrats - competent, articulate, boring.
Come the general election people will ask themselves: do I feel better off, does the country feel in better shape, than five years ago?
And the answer is going to be a resounding 'No'.
And the next question will be "who has the solutions to make the next five years better than the last five years"?
True. But if the answer is 'neither', then the fresher side may come out on top by default.
Or "better the devil you know" might.
This could be avoided, of course, if Sir Keir could come up with some sensible policies...
How will Starmer manage to respond the grandeur and ambition of Sunak’s vision of slightly more maths at school hdelivered by teachers that don’t exist)? When I heard Sunak speak, I was transported back to Wilson’s white heat of technology, or JFK’s “We choose to go to the Moon…” speech.
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I was thinking of tying them to the table and playing with 2 pinks.
What offence has the protestor committed? Criminal damage I guess?
What will the penalty be wonder - not much if anything? And he'll no doubt get pats on the back and kudos for what he did from his compatriots - and he's signalled his "virtue" on the tele.
So in the end the stunt was a cheap, effective way to disrupt and give their message. What can be done?
A quick search confirms that the Boat Race swimmer from some years back got jail, so there's some hope.
The idiots at Silverstone last year got suspended sentences and community service, having been convicted by a jury at the Crown Court. Sadly, judges appear to be taking an increasingly lenient stance towards ever more extreme forms of protest.
Fair play to Mark Allen in the snooker, going back out and completing a century break following the interruption.
We have had instances of judges praising the activists and protesters, so is it any surprise some are taking a more lenient approach ?
Most of the under 50's would vote for a return of FoM, and their views aren't changing with age, from what I've read of the polls, so it's just a question of how long you leave it until the Hard-Brexiter generation is even more clearly outnumbered. Maybe three or four years, at most.
Does anyone understand why younger voters support policies that will inevitably make it more difficult to afford to buy a property? Because the more people there are in the country the more expensive house prices will be, due to supply and demand.
Presumably they have concluded that bigger issues are:
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
Young people are perhaps also aware that their freedom of movement has been taken away by people who enjoyed it for themselves when they were younger.
I find the loss of freedom of movement one of the more interesting complaints of Brexit. How many young Brits actually used it to work round Europe as opposed to going on holiday (still fine)? Most Brits seem to have gap years in SE Asia, NZ, Australia etc.
In addition, academic exchange is still happening. I am hosting a Danish a student at the moment and we exoect to send around 15 of our final years overseas for a semester in the autumn, out of around 60 students.
Having stuff taken away from you, even if you don't intend to use it, can be pretty galling. I have lots of rights that I do not use that I would not like to lose. I can see why knowing that you used to be able to jump on a plane and look for a job for a year or forever or for some time in between in 30 European countries and that you no longer can might be quite provoking.
Maybe, but the point still stands. Almost none of them ever did. I assume you can also get work visas to work in other European countries too.
I’d much rather we hadn’t brexited, and kept both the SM and FoM, and hopefully in the (near) future we can align as close as possible to that state. But on the whole far more Europeans used the FoM to come to the U.K. than ever went the other way.
It's largely language: they all speak English, and we don't speak [x].
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I was thinking of tying them to the table and playing with 2 pinks.
Leave them on the table, and get O'Sullivan to play one of his famous fast, deep screw shots into a different sort of hole...
The problem with ECHR is that the powers that be have to be reasonable all the time. It’s a bit frustrating at times when others are behaving like spoilt brats.
Complaining about the welfare of the pockets, and that the red balls end up dead? Or are they worried about abuse of the chalk from the competitors?
One of the tables has been defaced with some sort of orange dust. The other table someone tried to get onto it. Was hard to see exactly what happened.
Oh crap. If they’re defaced the tables, they’ll have little choice but to abandon the session. It takes hours to change the cloths.
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I was thinking of tying them to the table and playing with 2 pinks.
What offence has the protestor committed? Criminal damage I guess?
What will the penalty be wonder - not much if anything? And he'll no doubt get pats on the back and kudos for what he did from his compatriots - and he's signalled his "virtue" on the tele.
So in the end the stunt was a cheap, effective way to disrupt and give their message. What can be done?
A quick search confirms that the Boat Race swimmer from some years back got jail, so there's some hope.
Piqued my interest so I checked. Causing a public nuisance. Seems to apply to the snooker idiots too, and indeed Aintree.
Although Sunak isn't that charismatic.... He is eons ahead of Starmer who is like a block.of wood.
But on today's R&W Starmer is a long way ahead of Sunak on net favourability and a point ahead on best PM.
Sunak grows on you tho. The more you see him, the more you think: Eh, he's OK, sounds smart, looks dapper, seems capable, works hard
Starmer is the opposite. The more you listen to him the more boring he is, the less likeable, the more vacuous, and devoid of ideas
It probably won't matter in an election when the public is urgently yearning for change, but it is a factor to be considered when the GE campaign will expose both men a lot
Remember Sunak did unexpectedly well against Truss when it came to the actual votes, after the hustings and the exposure. She was expected to absolutely walk it, she did not
If it were presidential, like the Tory contest was, that would definitely be a cause for concern for Labour. I see Starmer, at worse, as a slight drag on Labour and Sunak as the only thing the Tories have going for them. And I don't think he is compelling enough to make that much of a difference. I feel he is entirely inauthentic, but I would say that, I guess.
At the end of the day, it's not going to come down to what people think of Sunak or Starmer; both are grey technocrats - competent, articulate, boring.
Come the general election people will ask themselves: do I feel better off, does the country feel in better shape, than five years ago?
And the answer is going to be a resounding 'No'.
And the next question will be "who has the solutions to make the next five years better than the last five years"?
True. But if the answer is 'neither', then the fresher side may come out on top by default.
Or "better the devil you know" might.
This could be avoided, of course, if Sir Keir could come up with some sensible policies...
How will Starmer manage to respond the grandeur and ambition of Sunak’s vision of slightly more maths at school hdelivered by teachers that don’t exist)? When I heard Sunak speak, I was transported back to Wilson’s white heat of technology, or JFK’s “We choose to go to the Moon…” speech.
The doesn’t add up headlines rather write themselves don’t they (and I am someone who agrees with him about the importance of maths).
Comments
This could be avoided, of course, if Sir Keir could come up with some sensible policies...
Perhaps they should leave the protestors in the arena, and let the crowd deal with them.
I think it's much more simple than that.
Young people - especially young people in big cities - are much more likely to have friends who are EU nationals. They saw (and maybe even see) repudiation of the EU as repudiation of people they know and like. They don't think about the EU, they think about the EU citizens they like, and to them "Out", meant saying "Get Out" to their friends.
Indeed, the logic inevitably suggests never changing parties - if things are going well why would you switch? If things are going badly, well, this is no time for a novice at the helm, better the devil you know.
You think a labour government in 2024 is going to sort any problems in the country....well then I have a bridge to sell you. They have no answers, the tories have no answers, the ld have no answers because they are all wedded to the state does all this stuff and we cant cut any of it and we cant raise tax.
I keep saying I agree what we do should be fully funded so you have a choice
a) cut what the state does but properly fund it
b) raise taxes enough to full fund everything we currently do but then the basic rate would probably be at 70%
Supporting unfettered migration is up there with arguing for tax rises - there's an economic logic to it but no one will ever vote for it.
I think he deserves more that 2 years as PM. Don’t think he is going to get it though.
Oh, right, he doesn’t even mention it.
But notable that the usually paywalled WSJ is spamming this link across Twitter.
a) the refusal to build enough new homes over the last couple of decades and
b) the reluctance of older people to downsize.
It they are really paying attention, they will have noticed that the government hasn't cut net immigration, just changed the global mix.
Oppose European Freedom of Movement if you want, but please don't kid yourself that you are doing young people a favour.
1) There is no shortage - it’s all racist lies/Tory landlords ramping prices
2) There are enough empty flats owned by Evul Furiners to house everyone.
Etc
The common theme in many of these that no extra house building is required (no environmental concerns), and the problem could be fixed with strike of a pen.
He didn't have to have Braverman as Home Secretary - if he had to reward her by bringing her back he could have given her something else, since policy wise the position was set. Apart from his one answer on the ECHR, is there much indication he is not fully on board with that side of things?
The weird thing about his more steady approach is that it almost feels like we needed him in charge much earlier, even as he has been super rushed into the top job.
He may well go from new MP to PM to backbencher inside 10 years, a period which traditionally you might be just getting your feet under the table.
The denial on this is fascinating.
Snooker Loopy, nuts are we.
Here we have a leftie saying old people should downsize which will often involve them moving away from homes they have lived in most of their lives and away from the support network they built up from years living in the same location.
Why is it wrong to make a single mother move so she is not costing the tax payer so much but right to force an elderly person to move that is not costing the tax payer anything?
For my own part, I’m indifferent towards both.
https://twitter.com/OOCSnooker/status/1648029424736952322
A WHITE ball goes around hitting and then burying COLORED balls?
Can you get a sport that is more evidently racist???
But if it's JSO I suspect you're close with the 'are they insane?'
Why is it that PBers manage to be completely blind to that ?
It’s as though they are as blinkered as the young they criticise.
In addition, academic exchange is still happening. I am hosting a Danish a student at the moment and we exoect to send around 15 of our final years overseas for a semester in the autumn, out of around 60 students.
So, I'd say +1 is easy, +2 likely, +3 is possible, any more (like Stirling) is extremely difficult.
But his political views are Genghis Khan. I'm not sure people would really embrace them if they see through the veneer. Starmer is a very different character.
What will the penalty be wonder - not much if anything? And he'll no doubt get pats on the back and kudos for what he did from his compatriots - and he's signalled his "virtue" on the tele.
So in the end the stunt was a cheap, effective way to disrupt and give their message. What can be done?
A pipedream ? Perhaps, but many other countries and cities are looking at these kind of sustainable high-rise architecture ideas.
Most landlords don’t - for one thing there mortgage issues. Often it breaks building covenants on new blocks of flats.
It has now got to the point where, on new built flats in London, it is quite standard to find each bedroom door fitted with a deadbolt lock. As built.
Oh they just don’t make TV like that anymore.
East Renfrewshire is a possible pick-up given how well Jackson Carlaw did in the admittedly better-for-the -Tories equivalent Holyrood seat. And I believe the revised Aberdeen South is better for the Tories though I would imagine Stephen Flynn would be difficult to knock out given his profile as SNP Westminster leader.
Couldn't be done now with myriad social media.
I consider Clarence Thomas a friend, and I’m shocked by recent reports
https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/3954416-i-consider-clarence-thomas-a-friend-and-im-shocked-by-recent-reports/
Play looks like it’s about to resume, on one table and with the screen up.
It's entirely rational self-interest - just as boomers have supported policies that benefit their interests at the expense of the young for more than a decade, resulting in major generational divides.
And since you ask...
There's no particular reason why we can't all be pavillioned in splendor. It's just that, some time ago, we unconsciously collectively took a decision to stop building enough houses and infrastructure. My fundamental grouse is with those who have a nice place to live denying those opportunities to others.
However, if we have got a roughly finite housing stock, then it's totally legitimate to ask if we are using it the right way, because it's clearly not the case right now.
And as for the taxpayer question, there's more than one way government transfers money out of people's pockets. Taxes are one, sure, but so is stupidly inflated house prices. Had the booms under Lawson and Brown (nicely bi-partisan, I hope) not happened, British people would have a lot more spare cash for other stuff.
The big increase in house prices happened before widespread EU immigration. Between 1992 and 2004, the index of prices of to incomes rose from 4x to just under 8x. In the last 18 years, it's gone up to just a little more than 9x.
Why did prices soar between 1992 and 2004? Because interest rates collapsed, and housing became more theoretically affordable. People buy based on monthly payments, and the collapse of interest rates from 15% to 4%, combined with banks being willing to lend ever more, meant that there was enormous increase in demand for property.
And you then had a multiplier effect: people had made big gains on properties, and could therefore buy more expensive properties because of the big gains they'd made. (Meaning more deposits, meaning banks would lend them more.)
Now, should we build more properties?
Yes.
But building costs have gone through the roof. It's very hard to build new properties for the kind of money that enables developers to make decent profits. And interest rates rising makes it harder for developers too. Let's say they're now borrowing at 7%, and that it takes three years to build a property. That means they need to make a much bigger margin to even absorb the interest costs on borrowing to build.
Change in latest Labour lead compared to end of Feb polls:
Deltapoll: +6
Survation: +1
Savanta: +1
Omnisis: -1
Opinium: -2
Ipsos: -3
YouGov: -5
Techne: -7
PP: -8
R&W: -15
All the best, Mike!
Fair play to Mark Allen in the snooker, going back out and completing a century break following the interruption.
I’d much rather we hadn’t brexited, and kept both the SM and FoM, and hopefully in the (near) future we can align as close as possible to that state. But on the whole far more Europeans used the FoM to come to the U.K. than ever went the other way.
2. Hahahah, Sunak loses the election for the Tories and Sunakism survives - nothing wrong with fantasising occasionally as long as it doesn't become habitual.
I hope you are as okay as possible.
xx