@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
So no Scully and no Boff, instead 3 candidates not even I as a Tory activist have heard of, let alone the average Londoner.
Do CCHQ just want to give Sadiq Khan his re election next year as Mayor of London on a plate?
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
Had Russia occupied Ukraine, it would have been a similar story.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong and the Taliban were on the other side of the world from the armies they defeated.
The Vietcong got blown to tiny fragments. This was fairly deliberate policy on the part of the Hanoi regime - getting rid of potential opposition on their own side.
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war. Backed a very large quantity of Soviet equipment.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
Don't believe that's correct, esp. for VC who often used ARVN, USA, etc as their quartermaster corps.
As for Taliban, reckon they had/have access to weapons, ammo, etc. shipped to Mujahadin (sp) in 1980s by US, for example via congressional subcommittee run by then-US Rep. Charlie Wilson.
"Charlie Wilson's War" - fascinating book unfortunately turned into pretty crap movie.
BTW, when in House chamber, Wilson sat next to Barbara Jordan; they knew each other from serving together in Texas legislature.
Talk about your Odd Couple!
Though Wilson WAS a fighting liberal AND a fighting hawk; also a real hell-raiser in more ways than one.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
A bloke with a turban justifying his own honour and the one for Boris Johnson's hairdresser.
It's hilarious!!
There's a chance that a nasty wrong occurs here.
As far as I can tell, Kelly Dodge has been a hairdresser in parliament for many decades. She may have done Boris's haircuts, but she'll have done many, many others. A fair few backroom staff in parliament have had honours in the past.
Just because Boris wanted her honoured, doesn't make the honour automatically bad.
Here's a recent article about her.
"Dodge started cutting hair in her summer holidays when she left school and “ended up staying” in the trade. After a brief stint hairdressing aboard cruise ships, she ended up in a salon in Hampstead. It was this salon that successfully applied to be Parliament’s first unisex hairdressers, and again, having moved into Westminster, Dodge ended up staying. She has now been working in Parliament for 27 years. "
“If you’re a prime minister or if you’re a cleaner, I’ll treat you the same,” she says. “That’s what I think makes it work in here.”"
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
This does not meet the definition of a "huge shock". A "minor surprise" would seem to cover it.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
Don't believe that's correct, esp. for VC who often used ARVN, USA, etc as their quartermaster corps.
As for Taliban, reckon they had/have access to weapons, ammo, etc. shipped to Mujahadin (sp) in 1980s by US, for example via congressional subcommittee run by then-US Rep. Charlie Wilson.
"Charlie Wilson's War" - fascinating book unfortunately turned into pretty crap movie.
BTW, when in House chamber, Wilson sat next to Barbara Jordan; they knew each other from serving together in Texas legislature.
Talk about your Odd Couple!
Though Wilson WAS a fighting liberal AND a fighting hawk; also a real hell-raiser in more ways than one.
The Taliban were the creation of the Pakistani ISI - who backed them with money and arms.
The intent was to destroy the post Soviet government of Afghanistan. Which was seen as insufficiently pro Pakistan - they even started talking to India about an alliance…
Courthouse News Service - [US] Justices turn down ex-Trump official vying to join Mississippi commissioner race
It's not enough to be born and bred in the Magnolia State; you have to have lived there for the last five years to run for certain types of office.
The Supreme Court declined Friday to help a former Trump official skirt procedural hurdles keeping her from joining the Republican primary ballot for Mississippi public service commissioner.
Mississippi’s public service commission has three members that are elected every four years from three districts. Those commissioners are required to be a citizen of Mississippi for five years before the general election.
Amanda Gunasekara wanted to run for a seat on the commission but was blocked because of her tenure working for the federal government in Washington. She asked the high court for emergency relief. The application — submitted to Justice Samuel Alito and referred to the full court — was denied this morning without an explanation. There were no noted dissents.
Born and raised in Mississippi, Gunasekara made the decision to move north to the nation's capital in 2010 after graduating from law school. Gunasekara began work in Congress — first in the House of Representatives and then the Senate — but ended up at the Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration.
For eight years Gunasekara resided in Washington. While she says she never considered the city her home, she had no concrete plans to return to Mississippi during that time until the summer of 2018. Her parents purchased a home for her near their farm in Decatur, but she remained in Washington — even voting in the city for a friend running for an advisory neighborhood committee. . . .
Gunasekara announced her intention to run for a position on the commission in 2022, only to have her qualifications come into question through a challenge from Matthew Barton, a candidate for Desoto district attorney.
The Executive Committee of the Mississippi Republican Party initially denied Barton’s contest, certifying Gunasekara as a candidate, but a state court that reviewed the matter opted to disqualify her. The court found Gunasekara had maintained her Washington residence on Nov. 18, 2018 — the date she’d need to have be a Mississippi resident to meet the commissioner residency requirement.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Gunasekara’s disqualification without tackling her claim that the state-law residency requirement violated the 14th Amendment. . . . .
Gunasekara argues the five-year citizen requirement should not bar her from running for office because she lived in the state for over two decades prior to her Washington residency. . . .
The list of qualified candidates for commissioner is given to the state secretary of state on Friday, and the sample primary ballot is published on June 19.
Oh, Mandy Well, you came and you gave without taking But I sent you away Oh, Mandy Well, you kissed me and stopped me from shaking And I need you today Oh, Mandy
Don't cry for me, Mississippi The truth is, I really left you All through my Trump days My MAGA existence I was more than willing To keep my distance
Need the mighty Mr Zimmerman.
The only thing that she did wrong. Was not stay in Mississippi for far too long.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I don't think very many people are actually looking forward to a Starmer administration. I think they mostly just think it's time for a change.
That's exactly what it is. And, once that change takes place, they will rapidly turn their ire on it.
Quite possible. But new administrations have the opportunity to surprise on the upside as well, or benefit from events, so naturally they would take a positive view.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I don't think very many people are actually looking forward to a Starmer administration. I think they mostly just think it's time for a change.
May, Johnson, Truss and to date, Sunak have underwhelmed to such an extent he doesn't have to be particularly overwhelming to appear to be vastly better than his predecessors
Starmer will be our Francois Hollande I predict. He will win as Hollande did, albeit similarly likely more narrowly than expected, because of the unpopularity of the incumbent administration. For Sarkozy in 2012 there, read Johnson/Truss/Sunak here but will quickly revert to a high tax and spend social democrat and become unpopular in turn. Starmer's government will be more like the Wilson and Callaghan governments of the 60s and 70s than Blair's New Labour.
Indeed of other social democrats recently elected, Biden's administration and the Democrats in the US and Scholz's SPD led government in Germany, they too have become unpopular relatively quickly. Albanese's Labor government in Australia one exception but even it is past its honeymoon period in polls now
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
So no Scully and no Boff, instead 3 candidates not even I as a Tory activist have heard of, let alone the average Londoner.
Do CCHQ just want to give Sadiq Khan his re election next year as Mayor of London on a plate?
If you don’t know the London Assembly member and former leader of Harrow council, your knowledge of your party isn’t as good as we thought?
I just told my son that thunderstorms were likely.
He said that was because there had been lots of hot weather, and water had evaporated to form clouds. I then asked why that meant thunderstorms. He said because the clouds got charged. I asked how they got charged. He frowned, and said that it was because the rivers are full of flowers.
When we see something strange, we try to find an explanation that fits our knowledge - especially when the real scientific answer is fairly complex.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
To be honest, I really don't know what's going to happen.
All I know is that nothing is certain and you simply can't just take today's trends and extrapolate them confidently into the future.
When I vote I will not be extrapolating today's trends. I will be remembering the last 12 years of c*ck-ups, stitch-ups, outright lies, evasions, incompetence and sycophancy.
I just told my son that thunderstorms were likely.
He said that was because there had been lots of hot weather, and water had evaporated to form clouds. I then asked why that meant thunderstorms. He said because the clouds got charged. I asked how they got charged. He frowned, and said that it was because the rivers are full of flowers.
When we see something strange, we try to find an explanation that fits our knowledge - especially when the real scientific answer is fairly complex.
Indeed. I think our scientific knowledge is very much in its infancy.
I also think that in the future this will apply to many phenomena now considered "supernatural".
I do miss them: they had great livery on their 747s and were in 2001 and Blade Runner. TWA, Braniff, British Caledonian, where did they go? Four engined titans. None of your two-engined ETOPS Eurowhite Airbuses, proper airlines for better days. Jumpers for goalposts, jumpers for goalposts...
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
This does not meet the definition of a "huge shock". A "minor surprise" would seem to cover it.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I don't think very many people are actually looking forward to a Starmer administration. I think they mostly just think it's time for a change.
That's exactly what it is. And, once that change takes place, they will rapidly turn their ire on it.
Some people aren't even waiting for the change to take place before they turn their ire on this appalling Labour government.
Such is the reality of the 24 hour news cycle these days...
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I don't think very many people are actually looking forward to a Starmer administration. I think they mostly just think it's time for a change.
May, Johnson, Truss and to date, Sunak have underwhelmed to such an extent he doesn't have to be particularly overwhelming to appear to be vastly better than his predecessors
Starmer will be our Francois Hollande I predict. He will win as Hollande did, albeit similarly likely more narrowly than expected, because of the unpopularity of the incumbent administration. For Sarkozy in 2012 there, read Johnson/Truss/Sunak here but will quickly revert to a high tax and spend social democrat and become unpopular in turn. Starmer's government will be more like the Wilson and Callaghan governments of the 60s and 70s than Blair's New Labour.
Indeed of other social democrats recently elected, Biden's administration and the Democrats in the US and Scholz's SPD led government in Germany, they too have become unpopular relatively quickly. Albanese's Labor government in Australia one exception but even it is past its honeymoon period in polls now
The Wilson governments that won 4 of 5 elections? That unpopular?
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
So no Scully and no Boff, instead 3 candidates not even I as a Tory activist have heard of, let alone the average Londoner.
Do CCHQ just want to give Sadiq Khan his re election next year as Mayor of London on a plate?
1) Would the average Londoner have heard of Paul Scully? He's a junior minister of no particular reknown it seems (minister for London being a post I doubt many are aware of), a local councillor and then MP for one small part of London which doesn't mean others will have heard of him.
2) It might be possible that an unknown, be it Scully or someone else, is better given the toxicity of the brand.
3) Is it possible that Scully just didn't have a good showing in the shortlisting process and the others did? Why is he or anyone else entitled to a spot on the list?
4) You dismiss the others as ones you've not heard of, yet some appear to have just as much chance as being known to a normal person as Scully. One was leader of the London Conservatives for nearly 4 years, yet you dismiss them in outrage at Scully's omission?
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
In all honesty I suspect Scully was left off the list principally because he's an enormous knobend.
Someone should do a Venn diagram of Johnson supporters and enormous knobends...
sigh -this website was known once for its quality of debate and contributions
Anyways. I can confidently predict that the Tory government which will come after 5 years of a Starmer government, won't be much cop either. They won't last the full term. They're bloody awful.
I've heard of Korski because I have seen prominent Tories backing him in right wing media for weeks - so I don't believe a claim he has not been heard of among political activists.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
I'm centre-left and I agree with this entirely.
Thus far I don't see a reason to vote for Starmer other than "he's not the Tories who have fucked everything up". Which is fine, but the LibDems aren't the Tories either. So I'm voting for them.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong and the Taliban were on the other side of the world from the armies they defeated.
The Vietcong got blown to tiny fragments. This was fairly deliberate policy on the part of the Hanoi regime - getting rid of potential opposition on their own side.
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war. Backed a very large quantity of Soviet equipment.
No, it was the US which lost the war, by putting in power a corrupt Catholic minority, and antagonising the majority of the South Vietnamese populace. Along with killing a large number of them.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
Don't believe that's correct, esp. for VC who often used ARVN, USA, etc as their quartermaster corps.
As for Taliban, reckon they had/have access to weapons, ammo, etc. shipped to Mujahadin (sp) in 1980s by US, for example via congressional subcommittee run by then-US Rep. Charlie Wilson.
"Charlie Wilson's War" - fascinating book unfortunately turned into pretty crap movie.
BTW, when in House chamber, Wilson sat next to Barbara Jordan; they knew each other from serving together in Texas legislature.
Talk about your Odd Couple!
Though Wilson WAS a fighting liberal AND a fighting hawk; also a real hell-raiser in more ways than one.
The Taliban were the creation of the Pakistani ISI - who backed them with money and arms.
The intent was to destroy the post Soviet government of Afghanistan. Which was seen as insufficiently pro Pakistan - they even started talking to India about an alliance…
So are you arguing, the Taliban used zero NATO stuff?
Hard to believe, in region famed for reusing, repairing, cannibalizing, copying, etc., etc. firearms, etc., etc.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
I'm centre-left and I agree with this entirely.
Thus far I don't see a reason to vote for Starmer other than "he's not the Tories who have fucked everything up". Which is fine, but the LibDems aren't the Tories either. So I'm voting for them.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
To be honest, I really don't know what's going to happen.
All I know is that nothing is certain and you simply can't just take today's trends and extrapolate them confidently into the future.
When I vote I will not be extrapolating today's trends. I will be remembering the last 12 years of c*ck-ups, stitch-ups, outright lies, evasions, incompetence and sycophancy.
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
This does not meet the definition of a "huge shock". A "minor surprise" would seem to cover it.
Paul who????
This outrage seems manufactured to tie into the ongoing civil war, but pretending this dude is apparently leagues ahead of any other candidates and what a shock it is he has not made it does not come across as very plausible.
A likelier explanation is it was a bloody long list and he didn't make it to the next stage fairly. Being an MP may have counted against him too.
I just told my son that thunderstorms were likely.
He said that was because there had been lots of hot weather, and water had evaporated to form clouds. I then asked why that meant thunderstorms. He said because the clouds got charged. I asked how they got charged. He frowned, and said that it was because the rivers are full of flowers.
When we see something strange, we try to find an explanation that fits our knowledge - especially when the real scientific answer is fairly complex.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
Between people who think Brexit is a huge success, and cheap snobs who can't afford VAT to segregate their kids from the poor, I'm not sure which is the smaller vote bloc.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
I'm centre-left and I agree with this entirely.
Thus far I don't see a reason to vote for Starmer other than "he's not the Tories who have fucked everything up". Which is fine, but the LibDems aren't the Tories either. So I'm voting for them.
I must say I'm also centre-left, and except for the point about independent education, I couldn't agree with any of that at all.
If and whenever the money becomes available, the country badly needs a proper, long-term industrial strategy and a completely different approach to the failing and outdated one we've had for decades, for instance, and of the main party leaders Starmer looks the only man most likely to deliver any reforms like that at all, at some point.
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
So no Scully and no Boff, instead 3 candidates not even I as a Tory activist have heard of, let alone the average Londoner.
Do CCHQ just want to give Sadiq Khan his re election next year as Mayor of London on a plate?
1) Would the average Londoner have heard of Paul Scully? He's a junior minister of no particular reknown it seems (minister for London being a post I doubt many are aware of), a local councillor and then MP for one small part of London which doesn't mean others will have heard of him.
2) It might be possible that an unknown, be it Scully or someone else, is better given the toxicity of the brand.
3) Is it possible that Scully just didn't have a good showing in the shortlisting process and the others did? Why is he or anyone else entitled to a spot on the list?
4) You dismiss the others as ones you've not heard of, yet some appear to have just as much chance as being known to a normal person as Scully. One was leader of the London Conservatives for nearly 4 years, yet you dismiss them in outrage at Scully's omission?
Perhaps more than one Big (or little) Blue Ox getting gored here?
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
I agree with this. Certainly it is possible, especially if they are not starting with a comfortable majority (which would be hard to achieve), but the possibility of at least a second term is hardly a miniscule one.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
"And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out. "
The europsceptic nutters destroyed Major's premiership. And then Cameron's. They may not have been called the ERG, but they've been spreading their poison behind the scenes for years. They've been disastrous to the party and the country.
And they're still there. Look at Jacob Rees-Worm. Or Duncan Smith. Or any of the others. If you want good governance in your party, then you need to get rid of their hideous influence - in a similar manner to Starmer has with the Corbynites.
Also: I'm not as anti Suella Braverman as some are, but if you think she's in any way a sign of good governance, then you need to get your head screwed on right. The party is severely lacking in talent.
These ERG nutters also often have large majorities, and are more likely to survive a Labour landslide. As such, they'll gain prominence in a post-2024 Conservative Party.
What we're getting is a poor choice between two parties. I prefer Sunak to Starmer - but of the parties behind them, Labour's the best of the poor pick. They might surprise on the upside. There's little chance of the current Conservative Party from surprising on the upside.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
I don't think Labour will win a majority but if they do they will be in power for two terms.
Ok the National Gallery in DC is phenomenal. What a collection
I wasn’t joking about the rococo. Love me a bit of Boucher
So how much of the Smithson family bequest - or worse yet, taxpayers money - goes into keeping that corner reasonably clean and free of cobwebs?
Based on just that one pix, sense that Jim Jordan is preparing to launch yet another block-buster congressional investigation.
Blow the lid right off yet another festering mess of Woke madness in Our Nation's Capital.
EDIT - And THAT's without even considering the degenerate nature of the "art" on display! Child (or at least cherub) pornography AND lesbian step-mothering??
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Eh? He’s only been in 8 months. Sure, it’s felt like 2 years, but we’ve only had to suffer less than a year of this shite thus far.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
@christiancalgie 💥huge shock as Paul Scully fails to make the shortlist for Tory London mayor.
Final three are Dan Korski, Susan Hall and Mozammel Hossain.
Rishi scared of another by-election if Scully had won?
@christopherhope This is a major shock. Paul Scully was a key Boris Johnson supporter. One Conservative MP close to Johnson tells me this is further evidence of a purge of Johnson supporters from a chance of getting a top job.
So no Scully and no Boff, instead 3 candidates not even I as a Tory activist have heard of, let alone the average Londoner.
Do CCHQ just want to give Sadiq Khan his re election next year as Mayor of London on a plate?
If you don’t know the London Assembly member and former leader of Harrow council, your knowledge of your party isn’t as good as we thought?
She wasn't even a London constituency member or former parliamentary candidate. Though yes she sounds the best of the bunch.
Maybe Boris might even be tempted to run as an Independent on an anti Khan's ULEZ ticket? Remember it is FPTP only next May and he has done the job before and has huge name recognition. Even if he didn't win he would almost certainly beat the official Tory candidate. A few rumours Corbyn might run as an Independent too, now he also won't be a candidate for his party at the next general election in his Islington seat
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
I agree with this. Certainly it is possible, especially if they are not starting with a comfortable majority (which would be hard to achieve), but the possibility of at least a second term is hardly a miniscule one.
Especially as all existing evidence suggests that the Tories will choose a leader who'll make Boris and Truss look competent, let alone Starmer. And one with views much further away from the median voter.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I don't think very many people are actually looking forward to a Starmer administration. I think they mostly just think it's time for a change.
May, Johnson, Truss and to date, Sunak have underwhelmed to such an extent he doesn't have to be particularly overwhelming to appear to be vastly better than his predecessors
Starmer will be our Francois Hollande I predict. He will win as Hollande did, albeit similarly likely more narrowly than expected, because of the unpopularity of the incumbent administration. For Sarkozy in 2012 there, read Johnson/Truss/Sunak here but will quickly revert to a high tax and spend social democrat and become unpopular in turn. Starmer's government will be more like the Wilson and Callaghan governments of the 60s and 70s than Blair's New Labour.
Indeed of other social democrats recently elected, Biden's administration and the Democrats in the US and Scholz's SPD led government in Germany, they too have become unpopular relatively quickly. Albanese's Labor government in Australia one exception but even it is past its honeymoon period in polls now
The Wilson governments that won 4 of 5 elections? That unpopular?
Wilson won one election convincingly, in 1966. He lost the 1970 election to Heath. In Feb 1974 it was a hung parliament and he lost the popular vote to Heath and in 1964 Home beat him in England and he also failed to win a majority in England in October 1974
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong were not worth a pigeon’s fart. North Vietnam’s army won the war.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
This is beginning to worry me. A Conservative party that (at best) no longer has a theoretical model in their head of how to run a country, will presumably be replaced by a Labour govt that thinks wealth production is just so retro. By 2029 we will have had 13 years of post-referendum arsing around.and managerialism. This is not good.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
Indeed.
And then outcomes wildly diverged, with wages and living standards stagnating and then falling at the bottom, especially compared to some of our neighbours. Large areas of the south of England got rich, though.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
To be honest, I really don't know what's going to happen.
All I know is that nothing is certain and you simply can't just take today's trends and extrapolate them confidently into the future.
When I vote I will not be extrapolating today's trends. I will be remembering the last 12 years of c*ck-ups, stitch-ups, outright lies, evasions, incompetence and sycophancy.
As a result, I will not be voting Conservative.
As you didn't in 2019.
That is correct and for much the same reasons. The difference between now and 2019 was that instead of 12 years of "governance" it was a mere 9 years. At least back in 2010 there actually was a Conservative party. By 2017 it was a shadow of its former self and by 2019 it was gone.
I could not vote Conservative if I wanted to, because there is no Conservative party. All that exists today is a zombie version of the original.
There's so many named recent official sources, which is new.
What counts is evidence which can be expertly examined and re-examined and reported on according to peer reviewed science standards. Adjectives and hearsay don't count. That which is merely unexplained visual phenomena doesn't count either. We can't explain lots of things - consciousness, the origin of the universe, the reason why the law of gravity is how it is and not different, why we see yellow as yellow and not green, how life began and so on - but we don't attribute it to aliens.
As and when there is a real story it isn't going to be confined to websites no-one has heard of. There is a fortune out there for real scientists and accurate journalists, and they will get it if they can.
The rest is noise.
I wouldn't quite agree with this point of view. Much of the new information is already out there on mainstream news sources, for instance. What we have here, I think, is an entirely new situation where there are multiple current-serving or recently, named governmental officials making extraordinary claims, but for whom there seems to a great deal of legislation preventing them going further. So I would say still this seems to be primarily an issue about process, for the moment, rather than materials or evidence yet.
This is why the focus in the U.S is shifting to new Congressional hearings, and possible changes in the law to make further whistleblowing on this topic more easy.
And an awful lot more current serving or recent officials pouring scorn on the idea.
It’s grift, pure and simple, and it’s conning people who want to believe.
Well, let's do a little bit of a cut-and-paste of all the most credible recent sources, and do a sort of compilation of them, to see how they stack up.
When I have some time in a a bit, I will nose about and put them all together.
Kind of a problem when there are no credible sources, just grifters and lunatics.
This is a good piece on the latest UFO flap, and why it is different from all others. It makes the point I have been making for many months (but maybe you will accept it from the NYT if not from me) - even if you discount any idea of actual non human intelligence, the level of disclosure is now so high and detailed and “legitimate” something really really WEIRD is happening in the US government. At the very least. And smart people should now pay attention to this story
Indeed. What we have in fact is a completely new situation of multiple, current or near-current US official sources making UFO claims.
That 's certainly very interesting, at the least.
And when China is knocking on their door, they will regret deeply investing time and resources in creating such a frivolous ruse.
Although we can't say for sure if it's any ruse, ofcourse. What strikes me as very interesting is how different Grusch's profile has been from the image of a the classic UFO claimant. Currently serving, or very recently serving, young and bushy-tailed and preciously promoted and bright, and deep inside a US intelligence agency. That's a very similar profile to Edward Snowden, and he even has some of his earnest expression.
He may even be aware of the parallels, and is using him as his template. It's all very fascinating, and a story that bears following as it develops, I would say.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is currently zero empirical evidence which has been tested according to the standards of science or evidence analysis. Keep calm, wait and see. This a 'McCann' story - anything apparently new sells media by the million.
There are zillions of real scientists, experts and credible journalists who can make zillions out of the real story if there was any real story to relate.
So: please explain the behaviour of multiple senior members of the entire US Establishment, from Obama down. Generals, senators, CIA heads, the head of NASA, top NYT journalists, airforce commanders, navy admirals - they are all saying “this is a real mystery. It’s not just balloons. Something is up there”
And now the whistleblower
How do you explain all THAT?
I completely agree the actual evidence (photos, videos) is pitifully weak
Our ancestors would have been unlikely to have had difficulty coming to terms with the idea that there is stuff going on in the world that has no explanation. But we seem determined to explain everything with our existing scientific worldview and have become intolerant of any degree of mystery. A lot of what a 'genes eye' view of evolution does is provide an easy explanation for everything, it cannot account for flying objects that defy the laws of physics, so people then panic and pivot to the other extreme: it must be aliens!
Every bit of “inexplicable” footage we’ve seen so far has been explained as either lens flares or some other artifact.
Not sure that’s true. The Calvine photo remains unexplained. Likewise the tic-tac. And a couple of others
However it is an extraordinarily meagre haul if the world really is littered with crashed alien spacecraft
The disconnect between what really senior officials are saying and what we are seeing is one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole bizarre story
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
It was a time of high inflation, the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland and Middle East and Hong Kong at 90% top income tax rates, strikes so bad even the lights went out and rubbish went uncollected and inefficent nationalised industry. It took as I said Thatcher to sort it out (and also enable more to own their own homes)
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
"And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out. "
The europsceptic nutters destroyed Major's premiership. And then Cameron's. They may not have been called the ERG, but they've been spreading their poison behind the scenes for years. They've been disastrous to the party and the country.
And they're still there. Look at Jacob Rees-Worm. Or Duncan Smith. Or any of the others. If you want good governance in your party, then you need to get rid of their hideous influence - in a similar manner to Starmer has with the Corbynites.
Also: I'm not as anti Suella Braverman as some are, but if you think she's in any way a sign of good governance, then you need to get your head screwed on right. The party is severely lacking in talent.
These ERG nutters also often have large majorities, and are more likely to survive a Labour landslide. As such, they'll gain prominence in a post-2024 Conservative Party.
What we're getting is a poor choice between two parties. I prefer Sunak to Starmer - but of the parties behind them, Labour's the best of the poor pick. They might surprise on the upside. There's little chance of the current Conservative Party from surprising on the upside.
One of the many baneful legacies of Johnson was that he drove out many of the genuinely competent. The Tories would be in a much better place now if David Guake, Rory Stewart, Phillip Hammond, Anna Soubry and many others were still among their MPs.
I’m sorry for being right about everything. I know it’s annoying
We discussed this while you were busy posting your holiday photos.
Nonetheless, I was right, wasn’t I? All those months and years ago, when I told you: IT CAME FROM THE LAB
At one point I was the only person on PB voicing that opinion, to the derision of all others. Indeed I was about to give up, until @Gardenwalker - bless him - said “you know, you might be on to something”
Think that was late 2020?
Um, piss off. I most certainly did not deride anyone for theorising that it came from a lab. Once the lab's work and location were known, it was the only remotely sensible theory.
How do you account for MERS? And the original SARS?
I don't account for them. I don't know remotely enough about their origins to posit any sort of theory. This is whataboutery.
It’s really not. It’s making the point that all known epidemics in the history of man have been natural in origin. That does not preclude covid being the result of genetic manipulation in the WIV but it makes it having a natural source eminently plausible, in the way all the others ones started by crossing species to man.
Yes, in the absence of proof or near proof Natural is the default. For Lab to become favourite requires evidence compatible with Lab and incompatible with Natural. Just the first doesn't cut it.
The overwhelming circumstantial evidence makes lab leak the default in this case. As it was from the start. A novel bat coronavirus with strange manipulations at the furin cleavage site making it more dangerous for humans emerges in the ONLY city in the world with a bio lab playing with novel bat coronaviruses, and doing so by manipulating the furin cleavage site to make the viruses more dangerous for humans?
What are the odds on there being NO connection between these two things? About a thousand to one against
So it’s the natural wet marketeers who have all the proving to do. And despite three years of strenuous effort what proof have they managed to find? None. Zero. Nil. Nada. Nuffink. Every paper that claims to find a link with the market has been savagely debunked soon after
Meanwhile the evidence for a lab leak grows with more and more revelations of secrecy and cover up - to the extent that the Chinese themselves are now saying Hell yeah, it could be the lab
At this point piously believing in a natural origin is a basic intelligence test. Which you have failed
It is weird how this has become political. It is - generally - a few people on the left who are still desperate to believe it came from the market. As we see here. Why? Is it really coz trump said “lab leak” three years ago? Does he bother you that much?
This is not politics. It’s basic logic. Get over yourselves. It almost certainly came from the lab
You have talents but logical reasoning isn't one of them. It's more my thing. And I'm not desperate to believe either way. You otoh are enormously invested. To the point I'd worry for you if it went the 'wrong' way.
Yeah but you’re GAY*
(*I make this remark solely to please @kjh who is weirdly convinced I hurl this vile allegation when I get into an argument)
On this point - lab leak - your determined stupidity is far more interesting than your gayness
It is not a case of being weirdly convinced because you do, although only to @kinabalu. I mean the posts are there. When he has you rattled you accuse him of being gay. Not even sure why you think it is an insult. You aren't 5 years old or living in the 70s.
The other two insults you go for when rattled are accusing people of being boring or claiming you are more intelligent. You are very predictable.
VERY predictable, yes. And I'm not gay as it happens. I just have a soft feminine side.
Oi! We're not all into poncey poetry and flowery dresses I'll have you know.
You have been caught peddling lazy stereotypes about the fags and will therefore have to be cancelled. Sorry.
No but also yes since Leon is guilty of exactly this. Because I have a soft feminine side that I'm unafraid to show he calls me gay. It's real 70s throwback stuff. Have we *really* come as far as we think? I'm not so sure sometimes.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have experimented with gayness and have openly admitted to being on the BDSM scene (D if you must know) - hence my spotting The Necklace
The idea I would think “gay” is an insult is absurd. I’d be insulting myself
The fact is I do pride myself in spotting personal traits and you made the odd ambiguous remark and I thought I’d test the waters and see if you had a gay side. Turns out you do. That’s it. That’s all it is. Get over yourself
Ok. It did reek of 70s throwback attitudes but your convoluted and fishy sounding explanation is warily accepted.
When I riffle through my immaculately curated memory banks Istr Leon's experiments with gayness consisted of a pal begging him to put it up his bum but he just couldn't get lead in his Staedtler. I accept this is a worthy attempt but it's hardly Querelle of Brest.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
I agree with this. Certainly it is possible, especially if they are not starting with a comfortable majority (which would be hard to achieve), but the possibility of at least a second term is hardly a miniscule one.
Especially as all existing evidence suggests that the Tories will choose a leader who'll make Boris and Truss look competent, let alone Starmer. And one with views much further away from the median voter.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
The whole 1964-79 period was one of solid economic growth, high inflation, and political chaos.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
It was a time of high inflation, the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland at 90% top income tax rates, strikes so bad even the lights went out and rubbish went uncollected and inefficent nationalised industry. It took as I said Thatcher to sort it out
But as dixiedean mentioned, it was the time of greatest progress for many working-class people, and a large number of those strikes and stoppages were also actually under the Tories. The economy had actually stabilised and was on the up by 1979, but by then it was too late for a change in perceptions.
The happiest year in the UK is still recorded as in the mid-late '70s.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
Heath's government was anomalous too in being the only one where the same PM left office as won the election.
I just told my son that thunderstorms were likely.
He said that was because there had been lots of hot weather, and water had evaporated to form clouds. I then asked why that meant thunderstorms. He said because the clouds got charged. I asked how they got charged. He frowned, and said that it was because the rivers are full of flowers.
When we see something strange, we try to find an explanation that fits our knowledge - especially when the real scientific answer is fairly complex.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Eh? He’s only been in 8 months. Sure, it’s felt like 2 years, but we’ve only had to suffer less than a year of this shite thus far.
How long will he have been in office by the time of an October 2024 GE?
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
This is beginning to worry me. A Conservative party that (at best) no longer has a theoretical model in their head of how to run a country, will presumably be replaced by a Labour govt that thinks wealth production is just so retro. By 2029 we will have had 13 years of post-referendum arsing around.and managerialism. This is not good.
We'll also have had several years of GPT-generated mildly entertaining travelogues and thought pieces.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
"And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out. "
The europsceptic nutters destroyed Major's premiership. And then Cameron's. They may not have been called the ERG, but they've been spreading their poison behind the scenes for years. They've been disastrous to the party and the country.
And they're still there. Look at Jacob Rees-Worm. Or Duncan Smith. Or any of the others. If you want good governance in your party, then you need to get rid of their hideous influence - in a similar manner to Starmer has with the Corbynites.
Also: I'm not as anti Suella Braverman as some are, but if you think she's in any way a sign of good governance, then you need to get your head screwed on right. The party is severely lacking in talent.
These ERG nutters also often have large majorities, and are more likely to survive a Labour landslide. As such, they'll gain prominence in a post-2024 Conservative Party.
What we're getting is a poor choice between two parties. I prefer Sunak to Starmer - but of the parties behind them, Labour's the best of the poor pick. They might surprise on the upside. There's little chance of the current Conservative Party from surprising on the upside.
My own view is that Labour, in office, will be terrible, but the Conservatives have, for now, forfeited any right to govern.
There's so many named recent official sources, which is new.
What counts is evidence which can be expertly examined and re-examined and reported on according to peer reviewed science standards. Adjectives and hearsay don't count. That which is merely unexplained visual phenomena doesn't count either. We can't explain lots of things - consciousness, the origin of the universe, the reason why the law of gravity is how it is and not different, why we see yellow as yellow and not green, how life began and so on - but we don't attribute it to aliens.
As and when there is a real story it isn't going to be confined to websites no-one has heard of. There is a fortune out there for real scientists and accurate journalists, and they will get it if they can.
The rest is noise.
I wouldn't quite agree with this point of view. Much of the new information is already out there on mainstream news sources, for instance. What we have here, I think, is an entirely new situation where there are multiple current-serving or recently, named governmental officials making extraordinary claims, but for whom there seems to a great deal of legislation preventing them going further. So I would say still this seems to be primarily an issue about process, for the moment, rather than materials or evidence yet.
This is why the focus in the U.S is shifting to new Congressional hearings, and possible changes in the law to make further whistleblowing on this topic more easy.
And an awful lot more current serving or recent officials pouring scorn on the idea.
It’s grift, pure and simple, and it’s conning people who want to believe.
Well, let's do a little bit of a cut-and-paste of all the most credible recent sources, and do a sort of compilation of them, to see how they stack up.
When I have some time in a a bit, I will nose about and put them all together.
Kind of a problem when there are no credible sources, just grifters and lunatics.
This is a good piece on the latest UFO flap, and why it is different from all others. It makes the point I have been making for many months (but maybe you will accept it from the NYT if not from me) - even if you discount any idea of actual non human intelligence, the level of disclosure is now so high and detailed and “legitimate” something really really WEIRD is happening in the US government. At the very least. And smart people should now pay attention to this story
Indeed. What we have in fact is a completely new situation of multiple, current or near-current US official sources making UFO claims.
That 's certainly very interesting, at the least.
And when China is knocking on their door, they will regret deeply investing time and resources in creating such a frivolous ruse.
Although we can't say for sure if it's any ruse, ofcourse. What strikes me as very interesting is how different Grusch's profile has been from the image of a the classic UFO claimant. Currently serving, or very recently serving, young and bushy-tailed and preciously promoted and bright, and deep inside a US intelligence agency. That's a very similar profile to Edward Snowden, and he even has some of his earnest expression.
He may even be aware of the parallels, and is using him as his template. It's all very fascinating, and a story that bears following as it develops, I would say.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is currently zero empirical evidence which has been tested according to the standards of science or evidence analysis. Keep calm, wait and see. This a 'McCann' story - anything apparently new sells media by the million.
There are zillions of real scientists, experts and credible journalists who can make zillions out of the real story if there was any real story to relate.
So: please explain the behaviour of multiple senior members of the entire US Establishment, from Obama down. Generals, senators, CIA heads, the head of NASA, top NYT journalists, airforce commanders, navy admirals - they are all saying “this is a real mystery. It’s not just balloons. Something is up there”
And now the whistleblower
How do you explain all THAT?
I completely agree the actual evidence (photos, videos) is pitifully weak
Our ancestors would have been unlikely to have had difficulty coming to terms with the idea that there is stuff going on in the world that has no explanation. But we seem determined to explain everything with our existing scientific worldview and have become intolerant of any degree of mystery. A lot of what a 'genes eye' view of evolution does is provide an easy explanation for everything, it cannot account for flying objects that defy the laws of physics, so people then panic and pivot to the other extreme: it must be aliens!
Every bit of “inexplicable” footage we’ve seen so far has been explained as either lens flares or some other artifact.
Not sure that’s true. The Calvine photo remains unexplained. Likewise the tic-tac. And a couple of others
However it is an extraordinarily meagre haul if the world really is littered with crashed alien spacecraft
The disconnect between what really senior officials are saying and what we are seeing is one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole bizarre story
It looks to me as if we’re seeing ordinary things viewed in ways that surprise the operators of the instruments.
Mick West is an example of someone with an ideologically opposed rather than genuinely scientific, or openly-rigorous approach, I would say, which comes out in many things he says.
Of the sceptics, I think Nick Pope is actually more genuinely scientific in the way he goes about things. He's very interested in the Grusch reports.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong and the Taliban were on the other side of the world from the armies they defeated.
The Vietcong got blown to tiny fragments. This was fairly deliberate policy on the part of the Hanoi regime - getting rid of potential opposition on their own side.
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war. Backed a very large quantity of Soviet equipment.
No, it was the US which lost the war, by putting in power a corrupt Catholic minority, and antagonising the majority of the South Vietnamese populace. Along with killing a large number of them.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong were not worth a pigeon’s fart. North Vietnam’s army won the war.
Seem to recall USA expending fair amount of blood, sweat, tears and (last but hardly least) greenbacks versus VC.
Attrition hardly insignificant. Ditto impact on American psychology and public opinion.
For example, Tet Offensive was a big defeat for VC in purely military terms, and certainly did check them up.
HOWEVER it had a huge moral-morale-political effect back in USA, that made it a major victory, at least for North Vietnam.
"Pride" seems a bit calmer and lower key this year than in recent ones; far less in your face.
Maybe the corps got the memo.
My firm has added a pride flag to the rotation of phishing warning screensavers. I like it - very colourful.
The cat treats I got this week have a pride flag on them. Cat is refusing to eat them. Which either means she's just being fussy (again) or that I need to cancel her. She is refusing to answer questions on the subject.
A better bet at that Smithsonian are Dorothy’s red shoes (to see how small they are) also the staff were really good at getting twinB’s phone back to us in the uk…
Ok the National Gallery in DC is phenomenal. What a collection
I wasn’t joking about the rococo. Love me a bit of Boucher
Magnificent paintings, and they’ve hung them in what looks like the corner of a urinal?
It looks better in real life. Pietra serena - or made to look like it
It’s an exhaustingly world class art gallery. Replete with amazing masterpieces. Tons and tons. I will have to come back tomorrow coz now I’m booked to see Apollo 11
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
It was a time of high inflation, the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland at 90% top income tax rates, strikes so bad even the lights went out and rubbish went uncollected and inefficent nationalised industry. It took as I said Thatcher to sort it out
But as dixiedean mentioned, it was the time of greatest progress for many working-class people, and a large number of those strikes and stoppages were also actually under the Tories. The economy had actually stabilised and was on the up by 1979, but by then it was too late for a change in perceptions.
The happiest year in the UK is still recorded as in the mid-late '70s.
I think in the mid 1970s we had our lowest giving coefficient too, not u related to it being the happiest year.
Those strikes were disruptive indeed, but they did lead to the best share of the national wealth for working class people in our history, and we haven't equalled it since.
I’m sorry for being right about everything. I know it’s annoying
We discussed this while you were busy posting your holiday photos.
Nonetheless, I was right, wasn’t I? All those months and years ago, when I told you: IT CAME FROM THE LAB
At one point I was the only person on PB voicing that opinion, to the derision of all others. Indeed I was about to give up, until @Gardenwalker - bless him - said “you know, you might be on to something”
Think that was late 2020?
Um, piss off. I most certainly did not deride anyone for theorising that it came from a lab. Once the lab's work and location were known, it was the only remotely sensible theory.
How do you account for MERS? And the original SARS?
I don't account for them. I don't know remotely enough about their origins to posit any sort of theory. This is whataboutery.
It’s really not. It’s making the point that all known epidemics in the history of man have been natural in origin. That does not preclude covid being the result of genetic manipulation in the WIV but it makes it having a natural source eminently plausible, in the way all the others ones started by crossing species to man.
Yes, in the absence of proof or near proof Natural is the default. For Lab to become favourite requires evidence compatible with Lab and incompatible with Natural. Just the first doesn't cut it.
The overwhelming circumstantial evidence makes lab leak the default in this case. As it was from the start. A novel bat coronavirus with strange manipulations at the furin cleavage site making it more dangerous for humans emerges in the ONLY city in the world with a bio lab playing with novel bat coronaviruses, and doing so by manipulating the furin cleavage site to make the viruses more dangerous for humans?
What are the odds on there being NO connection between these two things? About a thousand to one against
So it’s the natural wet marketeers who have all the proving to do. And despite three years of strenuous effort what proof have they managed to find? None. Zero. Nil. Nada. Nuffink. Every paper that claims to find a link with the market has been savagely debunked soon after
Meanwhile the evidence for a lab leak grows with more and more revelations of secrecy and cover up - to the extent that the Chinese themselves are now saying Hell yeah, it could be the lab
At this point piously believing in a natural origin is a basic intelligence test. Which you have failed
It is weird how this has become political. It is - generally - a few people on the left who are still desperate to believe it came from the market. As we see here. Why? Is it really coz trump said “lab leak” three years ago? Does he bother you that much?
This is not politics. It’s basic logic. Get over yourselves. It almost certainly came from the lab
You have talents but logical reasoning isn't one of them. It's more my thing. And I'm not desperate to believe either way. You otoh are enormously invested. To the point I'd worry for you if it went the 'wrong' way.
Yeah but you’re GAY*
(*I make this remark solely to please @kjh who is weirdly convinced I hurl this vile allegation when I get into an argument)
On this point - lab leak - your determined stupidity is far more interesting than your gayness
It is not a case of being weirdly convinced because you do, although only to @kinabalu. I mean the posts are there. When he has you rattled you accuse him of being gay. Not even sure why you think it is an insult. You aren't 5 years old or living in the 70s.
The other two insults you go for when rattled are accusing people of being boring or claiming you are more intelligent. You are very predictable.
VERY predictable, yes. And I'm not gay as it happens. I just have a soft feminine side.
Oi! We're not all into poncey poetry and flowery dresses I'll have you know.
You have been caught peddling lazy stereotypes about the fags and will therefore have to be cancelled. Sorry.
No but also yes since Leon is guilty of exactly this. Because I have a soft feminine side that I'm unafraid to show he calls me gay. It's real 70s throwback stuff. Have we *really* come as far as we think? I'm not so sure sometimes.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have experimented with gayness and have openly admitted to being on the BDSM scene (D if you must know) - hence my spotting The Necklace
The idea I would think “gay” is an insult is absurd. I’d be insulting myself
The fact is I do pride myself in spotting personal traits and you made the odd ambiguous remark and I thought I’d test the waters and see if you had a gay side. Turns out you do. That’s it. That’s all it is. Get over yourself
Ok. It did reek of 70s throwback attitudes but your convoluted and fishy sounding explanation is warily accepted.
When I riffle through my immaculately curated memory banks Istr Leon's experiments with gayness consisted of a pal begging him to put it up his bum but he just couldn't get lead in his Staedtler. I accept this is a worthy attempt but it's hardly Querelle of Brest.
🙂 macho macho man, he wannabe a macho man
It’s also quite wrong. @theuniondivvie has misremembered. But it’s too early in D.C. to give gory details
I just told my son that thunderstorms were likely.
He said that was because there had been lots of hot weather, and water had evaporated to form clouds. I then asked why that meant thunderstorms. He said because the clouds got charged. I asked how they got charged. He frowned, and said that it was because the rivers are full of flowers.
When we see something strange, we try to find an explanation that fits our knowledge - especially when the real scientific answer is fairly complex.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
We do not elect “Starmer” or “Sunak” governments. If we elected Presidential style Sunak would have no mandate.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
It was a time of high inflation, the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland at 90% top income tax rates, strikes so bad even the lights went out and rubbish went uncollected and inefficent nationalised industry. It took as I said Thatcher to sort it out
But as dixiedean mentioned, it was the time of greatest progress for many working-class people, and a large number of those strikes and stoppages were also actually under the Tories. The economy had actually stabilised and was on the up by 1979, but by then it was too late for a change in perceptions.
The happiest year in the UK is still recorded as in the mid-late '70s.
I think in the mid 1970s we had our lowest giving coefficient too, not u related to it being the happiest year.
Those strikes were disruptive indeed, but they did lead to the best share of the national wealth for working class people in our history, and we haven't equalled it since.
Governments actually worried publicly aboiut the balance of payments and preserving British industry in those days. The UK then made, for instance, its own tanks, warships, auxiliary naval support ships, and quite a few of its fromtline military aircraft (some admittedly with the French).
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
It is an archaic form here, but survived in the colonies, like a number of others.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
We do not elect “Starmer” or “Sunak” governments. If we elected Presidential style Sunak would have no mandate.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.
Ooh, is that a kind of haiku I didn't know about? Not that I differ with the sentiments.
My own view is that Labour, in office, will be terrible, but the Conservatives have, for now, forfeited any right to govern.
I find it hard to believe they will be worse than this lot.
That is increasingly the general view. No great enthusiasm for Labour, but a clear loathing of the Tories. It is also why I think the Lib Dems will have a very good result next time.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
We do not elect “Starmer” or “Sunak” governments. If we elected Presidential style Sunak would have no mandate.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
It was a time of high inflation, the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland at 90% top income tax rates, strikes so bad even the lights went out and rubbish went uncollected and inefficent nationalised industry. It took as I said Thatcher to sort it out
But as dixiedean mentioned, it was the time of greatest progress for many working-class people, and a large number of those strikes and stoppages were also actually under the Tories. The economy had actually stabilised and was on the up by 1979, but by then it was too late for a change in perceptions.
The happiest year in the UK is still recorded as in the mid-late '70s.
I think in the mid 1970s we had our lowest giving coefficient too, not u related to it being the happiest year.
Those strikes were disruptive indeed, but they did lead to the best share of the national wealth for working class people in our history, and we haven't equalled it since.
In 1979 the UK had one of the lowest gdp per capitas in western Europe, when Thatcher left office in 1990 however the UK had one of the highest gdp per capitas in western Europe
Comments
Do CCHQ just want to give Sadiq Khan his re election next year as Mayor of London on a plate?
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war. Backed a very large quantity of Soviet equipment.
As for Taliban, reckon they had/have access to weapons, ammo, etc. shipped to Mujahadin (sp) in 1980s by US, for example via congressional subcommittee run by then-US Rep. Charlie Wilson.
"Charlie Wilson's War" - fascinating book unfortunately turned into pretty crap movie.
BTW, when in House chamber, Wilson sat next to Barbara Jordan; they knew each other from serving together in Texas legislature.
Talk about your Odd Couple!
Though Wilson WAS a fighting liberal AND a fighting hawk; also a real hell-raiser in more ways than one.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
But you've got aa track record in talking about hairdressers, haven't you? Shall I mention that again?
The intent was to destroy the post Soviet government of Afghanistan. Which was seen as insufficiently pro Pakistan - they even started talking to India about an alliance…
The only thing that she did wrong.
Was not stay in Mississippi for far too long.
Indeed of other social democrats recently elected, Biden's administration and the Democrats in the US and Scholz's SPD led government in Germany, they too have become unpopular relatively quickly. Albanese's Labor government in Australia one exception but even it is past its honeymoon period in polls now
He said that was because there had been lots of hot weather, and water had evaporated to form clouds.
I then asked why that meant thunderstorms.
He said because the clouds got charged.
I asked how they got charged.
He frowned, and said that it was because the rivers are full of flowers.
When we see something strange, we try to find an explanation that fits our knowledge - especially when the real scientific answer is fairly complex.
As a result, I will not be voting Conservative.
I also think that in the future this will apply to many phenomena now considered "supernatural".
Why?
Look at the stats and history.
Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence.
Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting.
Labour 13.
Tories 18.
Labour 11 out of 15.
Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath.
What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
That unpopular?
2) It might be possible that an unknown, be it Scully or someone else, is better given the toxicity of the brand.
3) Is it possible that Scully just didn't have a good showing in the shortlisting process and the others did? Why is he or anyone else entitled to a spot on the list?
4) You dismiss the others as ones you've not heard of, yet some appear to have just as much chance as being known to a normal person as Scully. One was leader of the London Conservatives for nearly 4 years, yet you dismiss them in outrage at Scully's omission?
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
I wasn’t joking about the rococo. Love me a bit of Boucher
I can confidently predict that the Tory government which will come after 5 years of a Starmer government, won't be much cop either.
They won't last the full term.
They're bloody awful.
Thus far I don't see a reason to vote for Starmer other than "he's not the Tories who have fucked everything up". Which is fine, but the LibDems aren't the Tories either. So I'm voting for them.
Along with killing a large number of them.
Hard to believe, in region famed for reusing, repairing, cannibalizing, copying, etc., etc. firearms, etc., etc.
A likelier explanation is it was a bloody long list and he didn't make it to the next stage fairly. Being an MP may have counted against him too.
If and whenever the money becomes available, the country badly needs a proper, long-term industrial strategy and a completely different approach to the failing and outdated one we've had for decades, for instance, and of the main party leaders Starmer looks the only man most likely to deliver any reforms like that at all, at some point.
The europsceptic nutters destroyed Major's premiership. And then Cameron's. They may not have been called the ERG, but they've been spreading their poison behind the scenes for years. They've been disastrous to the party and the country.
And they're still there. Look at Jacob Rees-Worm. Or Duncan Smith. Or any of the others. If you want good governance in your party, then you need to get rid of their hideous influence - in a similar manner to Starmer has with the Corbynites.
Also: I'm not as anti Suella Braverman as some are, but if you think she's in any way a sign of good governance, then you need to get your head screwed on right. The party is severely lacking in talent.
These ERG nutters also often have large majorities, and are more likely to survive a Labour landslide. As such, they'll gain prominence in a post-2024 Conservative Party.
What we're getting is a poor choice between two parties. I prefer Sunak to Starmer - but of the parties behind them, Labour's the best of the poor pick. They might surprise on the upside. There's little chance of the current Conservative Party from surprising on the upside.
https://www.187chambers.com/barristers/mozammel-hossain
Based on just that one pix, sense that Jim Jordan is preparing to launch yet another block-buster congressional investigation.
Blow the lid right off yet another festering mess of Woke madness in Our Nation's Capital.
EDIT - And THAT's without even considering the degenerate nature of the "art" on display! Child (or at least cherub) pornography AND lesbian step-mothering??
Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous.
For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
Maybe Boris might even be tempted to run as an Independent on an anti Khan's ULEZ ticket? Remember it is FPTP only next May and he has done the job before and has huge name recognition. Even if he didn't win he would almost certainly beat the official Tory candidate. A few rumours Corbyn might run as an Independent too, now he also won't be a candidate for his party at the next general election in his Islington seat
tweet
1 - Position Boris in front of powerful fan
2 - turn fan on
3 - job done
And one with views much further away from the median voter.
And then outcomes wildly diverged, with wages and living standards stagnating and then falling at the bottom, especially compared to some of our neighbours. Large areas of the south of England got rich, though.
I could not vote Conservative if I wanted to, because there is no Conservative party. All that exists today is a zombie version of the original.
Rob Graham goes through the Gimbal analysis here: https://hellscape.substack.com/p/the-ufo-gimbal-video-that-wont-die
It looks to me as if we’re seeing ordinary things viewed in ways that surprise the operators of the instruments.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
The happiest year in the UK is still recorded as in the mid-late '70s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxi9xTQ4pUU
Yup, there you go.
Swings and roundabouts.
Of the sceptics, I think Nick Pope is actually more genuinely scientific in the way he goes about things. He's very interested in the Grusch reports.
In this monologue, @RachelSJohnson shares her thoughts on her brother resigning.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1667975836908093441
Thanks Rachel, I needed a good laugh today thanks
Attrition hardly insignificant. Ditto impact on American psychology and public opinion.
For example, Tet Offensive was a big defeat for VC in purely military terms, and certainly did check them up.
HOWEVER it had a huge moral-morale-political effect back in USA, that made it a major victory, at least for North Vietnam.
A better bet at that Smithsonian are Dorothy’s red shoes (to see how small they are) also the staff were really good at getting twinB’s phone back to us in the uk…
It’s an exhaustingly world class art gallery. Replete with amazing masterpieces. Tons and tons. I will have to come back tomorrow coz now I’m booked to see Apollo 11
Those strikes were disruptive indeed, but they did lead to the best share of the national wealth for working class people in our history, and we haven't equalled it since.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.