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.
Fiery words ignite, A rant fueled by convictions, Debate's battleground.
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 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.
And "the lights went out" under the Tories and their three day week. Right to Buy was in the Labour 1959 manifesto. It is utterly fallacious to believe nobody bought their Council House before Thatcher. Tens of thousands did under Labour. She merely sold them on the cheap and failed to replace the existing housing stock.
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
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.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence & overexposed blobs on IR sensors that seem an awful lot like lens flare really don’t cut it for me I’m afraid. Same for tracked objects that magically get 2x faster when you zoom in 2x. This is supposed to be some great revelation?
I'm more interested, from my side, and as I mentioned, if there are legal changes in the US, and if then Grusch and others provide more evidence to back up their claims.
I agree that at the moment nothing is proven, but I think there's also a fair amount that isn't yet conclusively disproven, either. We may go on like this, with obviously open questions, but a lack of conclusive evidence also, for centuries.
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.
And "the lights went out" under the Tories and their three day week. Right to Buy was in the Labour 1959 manifesto. It is utterly fallacious to believe nobody bought their Council House before Thatcher. Tens of thousands did under Labour. She merely sold them on the cheap and failed to replace the existing housing stock.
Thatcher also took made us a nation of home owners for the first time, increased our average gdp per capita, changed London from a declining city with rubbish piling in the streets in the 1970s to the financial centre of Europe by the end of the 1980s and brought the unions under control as Heath, Wilson and Callaghan had failed to do
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
A decade of EU integration does good things to developing economies. Just ask others like Poland or the Baltics.
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
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.
Major and Cameron destroyed their own premierships by acceding to European integration, a direction of travel rejected by both the party and the country. That's the thing about our EU membership. We could have tolerated it if we had a static membership, but it was the constant turns of the screw that made things intolerable.
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take 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'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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take 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'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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The trend line was clear in the Red Wall seats and it had been trending that way for a decade. Ed M did nothing to stop that trend and may have accelerated it but not to the point where Labour actually lost seats.
There is a case for saying Corbyn delayed the inevitable - his 2017 performance made sure Labour kept those seats but they fell to the Tories with a vengeance in 2019 when the issue of Brexit took precedence.
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
Pre Brexit, the redwall didn't fall in 2017 under Corbyn, it fell in 2019 when Labour failed to support Brexit and respect the 2016 referendum result
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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
No-one serious thinks Brexit was a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
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
A decade of EU integration does good things to developing economies. Just ask others like Poland or the Baltics.
We had already been in the EEC for 6 years even before Thatcher became PM.
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU and in the top 5 nations in Europe on gdp per capita
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
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.
And "the lights went out" under the Tories and their three day week. Right to Buy was in the Labour 1959 manifesto. It is utterly fallacious to believe nobody bought their Council House bef
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.
And "the lights went out" under the Tories and their three day week. Right to Buy was in the Labour 1959 manifesto. It is utterly fallacious to believe nobody bought their Council House before Thatcher. Tens of thousands did under Labour. She merely sold them on the cheap and failed to replace the existing housing stock.
Thatcher also took made us a nation of home owners for the first time, increased our average gdp per capita, changed London from a declining city with rubbish piling in the streets in the 1970s to the financial centre of Europe by the end of the 1980s and brought the unions under control as Heath, Wilson and Callaghan had failed to do
North Sea oil revenue at the rate of a new hospital a day will that.
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
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
A decade of EU integration does good things to developing economies. Just ask others like Poland or the Baltics.
We had already been in the EEC for 6 years even before Thatcher became PM.
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU and in the top 5 nations in Europe on gdp per capita
Norway is a resource superpower, and also has politicians with decent IQ. Switzerland is deeply integrated with the single market and a member of Schengen. And has politicians with decent IQ.
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
Leon
It may surprise you to know that the museum guide book was written by the lady whose cartoons used to appear here regularly on PB.com
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
Do you think Japan is screwed as a country?
As an economy, absolutely. Look at their GDP per capita now, and their median household income.
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
I wonder if she gave IT lessons to BoJo
Ms Owen graduated from York University in 2015 with a 2:1 in politics and international relations, before working as an intern at a public relations company.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
No-one serious thinks Brexit was a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
Ms Owen graduated from York University in 2015 with a 2:1 in politics and international relations, before working as an intern at a public relations company.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
Do you think Japan is screwed as a country?
As an economy, absolutely. Look at their GDP per capita now, and their median household income.
Those figures tell you little about their quality of life and future prospects, and in any case, having a higher GDP per capita than countries like Spain or Italy is not most people's definition of 'screwed'.
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.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence & overexposed blobs on IR sensors that seem an awful lot like lens flare really don’t cut it for me I’m afraid. Same for tracked objects that magically get 2x faster when you zoom in 2x. This is supposed to be some great revelation?
Mick West was a believer. As a younger man he totally believed in UFOs. He has the zeal of the deconverted. He is also emotionally and financially invested in debunking (which he is good at) to a fatal extent. If ever a truly inexplicable photo/vid emerges or we get some other proof of “alien” UFOs his career is finished
To that extent he must be approached with a degree of caution
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
I wonder if she gave IT lessons to BoJo
Ms Owen graduated from York University in 2015 with a 2:1 in politics and international relations, before working as an intern at a public relations company.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
Ms Owen graduated from York University in 2015 with a 2:1 in politics and international relations, before working as an intern at a public relations company.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
Ms Owen graduated from York University in 2015 with a 2:1 in politics and international relations, before working as an intern at a public relations company.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
I wonder if she gave IT lessons to BoJo
1927 - Hollywood's "It" Girl (Clara Bow) 2023 - Westminster's It Lady (Charlotte Owen)
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.
The South Vietnamese fought very hard, to the end. They only broke when they ran out of ammunition.
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No because, as Corbyn showed, it’s far more difficult to shift a Labour leader even if the majority of backbenchers wants him (maybe even one day her) gone. And the Tories have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Even a shit Labour government is better than no government at all, which is what we have now.
Ms Owen graduated from York University in 2015 with a 2:1 in politics and international relations, before working as an intern at a public relations company.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
Does she have literally any qualifications at all to be a life peer? What expertise does she have?
Does she need qualifications to be a life peer? Six months working under Boris ought to be enough.
ETA according to the Telegraph, the important thing is she did not work for Michael Gove. The paper says:- One source has suggested that Mr Johnson had previously intended to elevate Henry Newman, another adviser, to the House of Lords, rather than Ms Owen.
As an aside, it reminds us that as well as Charlotte Owen being the youngest, Boris has also nominated Ross Kempell (ex-CCHQ, now Team Big Dog) as the second youngest life peer.
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No, unlike the Tories it is near impossible to chuck out a serving leader of the Labour Party against their will. It was tried on Corbyn, with something like 80% of MPs voting against him in a no-confidence vote.
Unless Starmer resigns voluntarily ormeets his maker, he will be leader for the full term. Truss like antics are a Tory perogative.
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No because, as Corbyn showed, it’s far more difficult to shift a Labour leader even if the majority of backbenchers wants him (maybe even one day her) gone. And the Tories have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Even a shit Labour government is better than no government at all, which is what we have now.
Not necessarily true. Governments can cause plenty of harm by interfering in which case no Government - as long as we don't have outright anarchy, the functions of the state still operate etc - is not such a bad option.
Ms Owen graduated from York University in 2015 with a 2:1 in politics and international relations, before working as an intern at a public relations company.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
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.
Nope. Both the Taliban and Northern Alliance were very lose confederations with lots of defections, re defections and rererere defections.
They wouldn’t have used much NATO stuff, anyway, since the American aid military, to what became The Northern Alliance, was nearly all in the form of Soviet bloc arms they (the Americans) bought on the gray market.
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
Do you think Japan is screwed as a country?
Depends on your definition of screwed. Things could be better.
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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
No-one serious thinks Brexit was a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
Fair enough. I think it's wrong because the roots of Russia's complex about Ukrainian independence are very deep and there was an internal logic driving Putin towards the decision to invade that had absolutely nothing to do with peripheral events like Brexit, just as he was not dissuaded from annexing Crimea when all was apparently well with the Western alliance in the pre-Brexit age of Obama and Merkel.
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No, unlike the Tories it is near impossible to chuck out a serving leader of the Labour Party against their will. It was tried on Corbyn, with something like 80% of MPs voting against him in a no-confidence vote.
Unless Starmer resigns voluntarily ormeets his maker, he will be leader for the full term. Truss like antics are a Tory perogative.
Even if Starmer faces a leadership challenge, the NEC and Labour conference have doubled the nomination threshold for leadership candidates since 2019
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No because, as Corbyn showed, it’s far more difficult to shift a Labour leader even if the majority of backbenchers wants him (maybe even one day her) gone. And the Tories have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Even a shit Labour government is better than no government at all, which is what we have now.
Not necessarily true. Governments can cause plenty of harm by interfering in which case no Government - as long as we don't have outright anarchy, the functions of the state still operate etc - is not such a bad option.
Tell me exactly where you draw the line where “outright anarchy” starts and we’ll talk. Contracts not being enforced because there’s no one to appoint judges? Bins not being collected? Pray tell what this “not quite anarchy” thing is?
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No, unlike the Tories it is near impossible to chuck out a serving leader of the Labour Party against their will. It was tried on Corbyn, with something like 80% of MPs voting against him in a no-confidence vote.
Unless Starmer resigns voluntarily ormeets his maker, he will be leader for the full term. Truss like antics are a Tory perogative.
If I was Labour, the main thing that would worry me about the results of the local elections was what came out of Leicester and Slough.
The initial reaction would be to say "yes but they are exceptions because of wilful mismanagement / bad local government" but that is the point. A country that wants the Tories out of power at all costs would have (mainly) swallowed Labour incompetence to teach the Tories a lesson because hatred of the Tories overrode all considerations. That did not happen. Instead, the Tories took seats off Labour in both towns.
That suggests dislike of the Tories has reached such a level where the voters are willing to overlook Labour's weaknesses. That is going to matter as we get closer to the election because, unlike now where no one is thinking about the GE in <18 months time, Labour's policies will come under a lot more scrutiny and it is clear there are some (such as their oil and gas policies) which are not standing up well when they are being scrutinised, as is happening in Scotland.
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Yes, we know we used to say "gotten". That's how the Americans got hold of the word. But to stand up your claim it was reimported from Scotland rather than America, we'll need citations from Taggart and Trainspotters.
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
Even by the rather low standards of Peers having something to contribute that is a rather thin offering.
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.
Nope. Both the Taliban and Northern Alliance were very lose confederations with lots of defections, re defections and rererere defections.
They wouldn’t have used much NATO stuff, anyway, since the American aid military, to what became The Northern Alliance, was nearly all in the form of Soviet bloc arms they (the Americans) bought on the gray market.
OK, willing to stipulate correctitude of your remarks.
And please note, that yours truly never said NATO stuff was all, most or even a lot of what Mujahadeen > Taliban had to work with.
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
No-one serious thinks Brexit was a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
Fair enough. I think it's wrong because the roots of Russia's complex about Ukrainian independence are very deep and there was an internal logic driving Putin towards the decision to invade that had absolutely nothing to do with peripheral events like Brexit, just as he was not dissuaded from annexing Crimea when all was apparently well with the Western alliance in the pre-Brexit age of Obama and Merkel.
I’d also point out that staying on the Gold Standard was the Conventional Wisdom of the day. Coming off the Gold Standard was something akin to… Brexit :-)
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
A decade of EU integration does good things to developing economies. Just ask others like Poland or the Baltics.
We had already been in the EEC for 6 years even before Thatcher became PM.
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU and in the top 5 nations in Europe on gdp per capita
Norway is a resource superpower, and also has politicians with decent IQ. Switzerland is deeply integrated with the single market and a member of Schengen. And has politicians with decent IQ.
We have politicians like Liz Truss.
You could see that as an argument in favour of Brexit - in that it might encourage a higher grade politician - as the consequences are more serious. I appreciate that so far the evidence isn't promising...
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
Do you think Japan is screwed as a country?
As an economy, absolutely. Look at their GDP per capita now, and their median household income.
Those figures tell you little about their quality of life and future prospects, and in any case, having a higher GDP per capita than countries like Spain or Italy is not most people's definition of 'screwed'.
Put it this way I’d not want to be in charge if Japan’s economy and public services. The direction is down down down. Only a couple of decades ago it had a GDP per head way above ours and higher than Germany’s.
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
Have you seen that case out of New York about the lawyers who did legal research via ChatGPT, which provided citations of made up cases, then excerpts from the fake cases which they appended to legal submissions even though it was clear they were nonsense, and are now saying they read none of it, whilst still submitting to Federal Court, and did not realise ChatGPT could be wrong?
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
Even by the rather low standards of Peers having something to contribute that is a rather thin offering.
Instead of a hostess with the mostest, she's peeress with the merest?
That's an utter shocker. Her full Wiki profile is:
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
No-one serious thinks Brexit was a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
Fair enough. I think it's wrong because the roots of Russia's complex about Ukrainian independence are very deep and there was an internal logic driving Putin towards the decision to invade that had absolutely nothing to do with peripheral events like Brexit, just as he was not dissuaded from annexing Crimea when all was apparently well with the Western alliance in the pre-Brexit age of Obama and Merkel.
I’d also point out that staying on the Gold Standard was the Conventional Wisdom of the day. Coming off the Gold Standard was something akin to… Brexit :-)
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
How about Charles William Sydney Pierrepont? 4th Earl Manvers, of Nottinghamshire. English enough for you? Many more examples can be gotten in Hansard across the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries
Sounds suspiciously froggish to me.
Descendant of French bounder/henchperson imported by King John and the Sheriff?
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.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
No-one serious thinks Brexit was a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
Fair enough. I think it's wrong because the roots of Russia's complex about Ukrainian independence are very deep and there was an internal logic driving Putin towards the decision to invade that had absolutely nothing to do with peripheral events like Brexit, just as he was not dissuaded from annexing Crimea when all was apparently well with the Western alliance in the pre-Brexit age of Obama and Merkel.
I’d also point out that staying on the Gold Standard was the Conventional Wisdom of the day. Coming off the Gold Standard was something akin to… Brexit :-)
Brining Gold Standard in general, yes, but most certainly not at the rate he pegged sterling at. He decided to ignore WW1 and fix it the 1914 rate of £1 to $4.86 against most advice A better analogy would be that it was like joining the Euro/ERM at some insane DM rate.
Well done to Nicola on helping Labour win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
Do you think Japan is screwed as a country?
As an economy, absolutely. Look at their GDP per capita now, and their median household income.
Those figures tell you little about their quality of life and future prospects, and in any case, having a higher GDP per capita than countries like Spain or Italy is not most people's definition of 'screwed'.
Put it this way I’d not want to be in charge if Japan’s economy and public services. The direction is down down down. Only a couple of decades ago it had a GDP per head way above ours and higher than Germany’s.
If you visit Japan now, you don’t get the impression that you are visiting a place we have leapfrogged economically.
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
Have you seen that case out of New York about the lawyers who did legal research via ChatGPT, which provided citations of made up cases, then excerpts from the fake cases which they appended to legal submissions even though it was clear they were nonsense, and are now saying they read none of it, whilst still submitting to Federal Court, and did not realise ChatGPT could be wrong?
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
That story is actually quite plausible, due to a certain kind of American lawyer. When they fuck up, due to a level of stupidity that resembles that of a dead marmoset, they inevitably respond that it is someone else’s fault and sue 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.
The South Vietnamese fought very hard, to the end. They only broke when they ran out of ammunition.
Some.
Most of the military were utterly corrupt and avoided contact assiduously. Without popular support it was obvious by ‘65 the war was unwinnable on the terms it was being fought. And the US likely killed more civilians than combatants.
Well done to Nicola on helping Labout win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especiially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
The Russians are so dependent on their railways, that stuffing their supply lines is just a list of fixed coordinates. If you have the kit to hit them - think Storm Shadow, extended range MLRS toys….
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.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
Have you seen that case out of New York about the lawyers who did legal research via ChatGPT, which provided citations of made up cases, then excerpts from the fake cases which they appended to legal submissions even though it was clear they were nonsense, and are now saying they read none of it, whilst still submitting to Federal Court, and did not realise ChatGPT could be wrong?
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
That story is actually quite plausible, due to a certain kind of American lawyer. When they fuck up, due to a level of stupidity that resembles that of a dead marmoset, they inevitably respond that it is someone else’s fault and sue them.
Based on reading the story published by NYT, believe that the lawyer in question was not so much blaming ChatGPT, but explaining how and why he'd screwed up. Claiming he did not intend to deceive or mislead, but simply was ignorant of fact that ChatGPT does make shit up.
He is NOT alone, by the way. Despite what eager, informed PBers may think, not everyone is as clued into what's happening now in the wide, wild world of tech.
For example, a professor recently told me about a case of ChatGPT garbage being submitted in answers to essay questions on tests. Which was brought to the attention of the dean & other senior academic manager types. Who turned out didn't know ChatGPT from a hole in the ground, or even more fundamental aperture.
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.
The South Vietnamese fought very hard, to the end. They only broke when they ran out of ammunition.
Some.
Most of the military were utterly corrupt and avoided contact assiduously. Without popular support it was obvious by ‘65 the war was unwinnable on the terms it was being fought. And the US likely killed more civilians than combatants.
Yet when the North came South with a huge tank army, the South fought until they ran out of ammunition. They hammered the North’s army pretty hard. An interesting what-if relates to the US Congress not cutting off arms supplies.
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.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No because, as Corbyn showed, it’s far more difficult to shift a Labour leader even if the majority of backbenchers wants him (maybe even one day her) gone. And the Tories have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Even a shit Labour government is better than no government at all, which is what we have now.
Not necessarily true. Governments can cause plenty of harm by interfering in which case no Government - as long as we don't have outright anarchy, the functions of the state still operate etc - is not such a bad option.
Tell me exactly where you draw the line where “outright anarchy” starts and we’ll talk. Contracts not being enforced because there’s no one to appoint judges? Bins not being collected? Pray tell what this “not quite anarchy” thing is?
when someone knocks on your door and says 'there is no government, we're here to kill you'
Comments
A rant fueled by convictions,
Debate's battleground.
It is utterly fallacious to believe nobody bought their Council House before Thatcher. Tens of thousands did under Labour.
She merely sold them on the cheap and failed to replace the existing housing stock.
You don't like Labour and never will - and that's okay. But please don't pretend you're impartial.
I agree that at the moment nothing is proven, but I think there's also a fair amount that isn't yet conclusively disproven, either. We may go on like this, with obviously open questions, but a lack of conclusive evidence also, for centuries.
Note - believe that "Len-furt" is (or was) common for Black Washingtonians
There is a case for saying Corbyn delayed the inevitable - his 2017 performance made sure Labour kept those seats but they fell to the Tories with a vengeance in 2019 when the issue of Brexit took precedence.
I make no other comment, but, you of course can.
https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1667939381250867200
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU and in the top 5 nations in Europe on gdp per capita
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
It is utterly fallacious to believe nobody bought their Council House bef North Sea oil revenue at the rate of a new hospital a day will that.
Charlotte Kathryn Tranter Owen (born 1993) was a special adviser to the Prime Minister. In June 2023 it was announced that she was to be granted a life peerage in the 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours. Owen will be the youngest life peer in British history.
Owen graduated from the University of York in 2015, gaining a 2:1 in Politics and International Relations. She is not known to have any formal professional qualifications or experience of work. She worked as an intern and parliamentary assistant, before joining the 'Number 10' Political Unit as a special adviser in an unknown role under successive prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. In her special adviser role, Owen worked 50% for Boris Johnson, and 50% for the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chris Heaton-Harris.
We have politicians like Liz Truss.
It may surprise you to know that the museum guide book was written by the lady whose cartoons used to appear here regularly on PB.com
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/search/an/martha+Richler/tn/national+gallery+art+washington/sortby/3/
It may still be on sale if not out of print.
She joined the Downing Street policy unit last year and, according to official documents published in July this year, worked half the time for Mr Johnson and the rest for Chris Heaton-Harris, the then chief whip. Her salary was not disclosed, because it did not surpass the £70,000 threshold that is required for it to be made public.
One Downing Street insider at the time had no recollection of Ms Owen working inside Number 10, but stressed that did not mean she “wasn’t important”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/10/boris-johnson-bid-make-charlotte-owen-youngest-ever-life-peer/
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
To that extent he must be approached with a degree of caution
Hmm.
Except Caligula didn't of course make his horse a consul. And quite possibly it's a scurrilous rumour that even suggested it.
2023 - Westminster's It Lady (Charlotte Owen)
ADDENDUM - Jen's Interview, IT Crowd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuPolrd9yuo
ETA according to the Telegraph, the important thing is she did not work for Michael Gove. The paper says:-
One source has suggested that Mr Johnson had previously intended to elevate Henry Newman, another adviser, to the House of Lords, rather than Ms Owen.
But Mr Newman was ditched from the list after he went back to work for Michael Gove, Mr Johnson’s arch rival, and Ms Owen’s name was put on the list as a replacement, claimed the source.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/10/boris-johnson-bid-make-charlotte-owen-youngest-ever-life-peer/
As an aside, it reminds us that as well as Charlotte Owen being the youngest, Boris has also nominated Ross Kempell (ex-CCHQ, now Team Big Dog) as the second youngest life peer.
Unless Starmer resigns voluntarily ormeets his maker, he will be leader for the full term. Truss like antics are a Tory perogative.
They wouldn’t have used much NATO stuff, anyway, since the American aid military, to what became The Northern Alliance, was nearly all in the form of Soviet bloc arms they (the Americans) bought on the gray market.
The initial reaction would be to say "yes but they are exceptions because of wilful mismanagement / bad local government" but that is the point. A country that wants the Tories out of power at all costs would have (mainly) swallowed Labour incompetence to teach the Tories a lesson because hatred of the Tories overrode all considerations. That did not happen. Instead, the Tories took seats off Labour in both towns.
That suggests dislike of the Tories has reached such a level where the voters are willing to overlook Labour's weaknesses. That is going to matter as we get closer to the election because, unlike now where no one is thinking about the GE in <18 months time, Labour's policies will come under a lot more scrutiny and it is clear there are some (such as their oil and gas policies) which are not standing up well when they are being scrutinised, as is happening in Scotland.
The next election is still an open race.
The nutty Tories have been.
And please note, that yours truly never said NATO stuff was all, most or even a lot of what Mujahadeen > Taliban had to work with.
Just more than zero.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
The PM was confronted at the height of the #MeToo movement in 2017, when she told him she was still “shaken and upset”
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1545825125810970626
Gabriel Pogrund just re-tweeted this. Johnson is a scumbag
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
2019 was a heck of an election
No. The Metropolitan Police has been criminally investigating King Charles’s aides and other royal fixers since 2021.
Our sovereign was intimately involved in the events under investigation.
Detectives have not spoken to key individuals involved, but Scotland Yard won’t say why
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1667956080289148928?cxt=HHwWgMCzqfjN4qUuAAAA
Descendant of French bounder/henchperson imported by King John and the Sheriff?
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
Most of the military were utterly corrupt and avoided contact assiduously.
Without popular support it was obvious by ‘65 the war was unwinnable on the terms it was being fought.
And the US likely killed more civilians than combatants.
He is NOT alone, by the way. Despite what eager, informed PBers may think, not everyone is as clued into what's happening now in the wide, wild world of tech.
For example, a professor recently told me about a case of ChatGPT garbage being submitted in answers to essay questions on tests. Which was brought to the attention of the dean & other senior academic manager types. Who turned out didn't know ChatGPT from a hole in the ground, or even more fundamental aperture.