Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
ETA Just seen this, he is working on the relatability after all
"He said his daughters, Krishna and Anoushka, were “very excited” about the prospect of visiting Disneyland.
The prime minister, a self-confessed “huge Star Wars fan”, joked that his daughters were worried they would spend too much time at Disneyland’s new Star Wars area.
Sunak has a sizeable collection of lightsabers and has previously described Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, chancellor and home secretary, as his “Jedi Master” before a 2019 screening of The Rise of Skywalker."
This isn't going to hurt Sunak at all. Those that loathe/reject him for being so rich are already baked in to his polling
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
I'm not sure about the electoral impact of this.
Certainly, Sunak is very wealthy indeed, and that's not ideal politically in a cost of living crisis.
But there it is. Taking a holiday in a static caravan in Prestatyn wouldn't make him look like a man of the people - it'd make him look like a billionaire staying, for political reasons, in a static caravan in Prestatyn.
So, to the extent his great wealth is a drawback for him, that's priced in. I don't think being ostentatiously frugal can really deal with it, so don't bother and have a nice holiday with the family.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
My favourite lobby group has always been the hotel lobby. Comfy chairs, sometimes a bar...
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
I agree... but I'm simply saying he can't solve that by pretending not to be wealthy, and shouldn't bother. Indeed, it risks drawing attention to it in a kind of "I want to live like common people..." way.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
My favourite lobby group has always been the hotel lobby. Comfy chairs, sometimes a bar...
The way the right seem to speak is that anyone who is vaguely left of centre is somehow thick if they don't agree with them.
This feels awfully like Labour in 2019, calling all voters who weren't like them, thick.
Perhaps it's that some people genuinely think being left-wing is okay and they have these beliefs sincerely? Why do they have to be brainwashed or thick.
Perhaps the right should try and understand young people.
Brainwashed thickos acting as if it was other people who were brainwashed thickos, rather than themselves, is the hallmark of this country.
Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
ETA Just seen this, he is working on the relatability after all
"He said his daughters, Krishna and Anoushka, were “very excited” about the prospect of visiting Disneyland.
The prime minister, a self-confessed “huge Star Wars fan”, joked that his daughters were worried they would spend too much time at Disneyland’s new Star Wars area.
Sunak has a sizeable collection of lightsabers and has previously described Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, chancellor and home secretary, as his “Jedi Master” before a 2019 screening of The Rise of Skywalker."
This isn't going to hurt Sunak at all. Those that loathe/reject him for being so rich are already baked in to his polling
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
I agree. I don't think California is seen as a particularly luxurious destination. And he has a flat there, so I guess he won't be staying anywhere with gold plated taps, and a butler service which the press would love.
Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
ETA Just seen this, he is working on the relatability after all
"He said his daughters, Krishna and Anoushka, were “very excited” about the prospect of visiting Disneyland.
The prime minister, a self-confessed “huge Star Wars fan”, joked that his daughters were worried they would spend too much time at Disneyland’s new Star Wars area.
Sunak has a sizeable collection of lightsabers and has previously described Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, chancellor and home secretary, as his “Jedi Master” before a 2019 screening of The Rise of Skywalker."
This isn't going to hurt Sunak at all. Those that loathe/reject him for being so rich are already baked in to his polling
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
I agree. I don't think California is seen as a particularly luxurious destination. And he has a flat there, so I guess he won't be staying anywhere with gold plated taps, and a butler service which the press would love.
You reckon his LA flat doesn’t have gold-plated taps and a butler service?
...there is this mindset amongst some blokes that it is all I Me Mine and whatever women want should fit around their needs / desires / demands.
Are you referring to the blokes who demand to be accepted as female because of their attire and think that no mere woman should have the right to contradict them?
Yes. Because all conversations on PB must somehow have a trans subtext. No exceptions.
I have no idea why Vanilla rotates all my images 90°. Cringe.
A lot of phones only take images in one orientation and simply put the rotation status in the metadata (so phone, computer display it right, but popping the image in html gives you the original, unrotated image).
Never seen this issue on any images I've posted from my iPhone on a variety of platforms.
An iPhone is not "a lot of phones"*, it's special
Interesting that, though. Does the iPhone do a real rotate on all portrait captured images, rather than just metadata? Or do the apps/Safari etc do a real rotate before upload?
*obviously it is actually a lot of phones, given sales, but you know what I mean
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
I agree... but I'm simply saying he can't solve that by pretending not to be wealthy, and shouldn't bother. Indeed, it risks drawing attention to it in a kind of "I want to live like common people..." way.
Sunak's image problem is exacerbated by the fact that he married into extreme wealth rather than being a self-made man, so he can't really lean in to it either.
...there is this mindset amongst some blokes that it is all I Me Mine and whatever women want should fit around their needs / desires / demands.
Are you referring to the blokes who demand to be accepted as female because of their attire and think that no mere woman should have the right to contradict them?
Yes. Because all conversations on PB must somehow have a trans subtext. No exceptions.
Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
ETA Just seen this, he is working on the relatability after all
"He said his daughters, Krishna and Anoushka, were “very excited” about the prospect of visiting Disneyland.
The prime minister, a self-confessed “huge Star Wars fan”, joked that his daughters were worried they would spend too much time at Disneyland’s new Star Wars area.
Sunak has a sizeable collection of lightsabers and has previously described Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, chancellor and home secretary, as his “Jedi Master” before a 2019 screening of The Rise of Skywalker."
This isn't going to hurt Sunak at all. Those that loathe/reject him for being so rich are already baked in to his polling
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
Disneyland features on many working class British people's lists of Places I'd Go If I Won The Lottery. You might think of it as a riffraff destination and not at all in the same category as Bequia, but that's not how most voters think of it.
The way the right seem to speak is that anyone who is vaguely left of centre is somehow thick if they don't agree with them.
This feels awfully like Labour in 2019, calling all voters who weren't like them, thick.
Perhaps it's that some people genuinely think being left-wing is okay and they have these beliefs sincerely? Why do they have to be brainwashed or thick.
Perhaps the right should try and understand young people.
A fair point, but to some extent matched by those on the left who think those on the right are 'evil' etc
Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
ETA Just seen this, he is working on the relatability after all
"He said his daughters, Krishna and Anoushka, were “very excited” about the prospect of visiting Disneyland.
The prime minister, a self-confessed “huge Star Wars fan”, joked that his daughters were worried they would spend too much time at Disneyland’s new Star Wars area.
Sunak has a sizeable collection of lightsabers and has previously described Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, chancellor and home secretary, as his “Jedi Master” before a 2019 screening of The Rise of Skywalker."
This isn't going to hurt Sunak at all. Those that loathe/reject him for being so rich are already baked in to his polling
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
Disneyland features on many working class British people's lists of Places I'd Go If I Won The Lottery. You might think of it as a riffraff destination and not at all in the same category as Bequia, but that's not how most voters think of it.
Disneyland Florida. Disneyland California is a bit more... exotic?
Quite a lot of people seem to do West Coast driving holidays.
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
It's an issue but it is hardly a revalation
"Rich man takes pleasant family on hols to California" is not gonna shift a single opinion
As @SirNorfolkPassmore correctly notes, it would be far worse if Sunak tried to hide this and pretended to enjoy his week in Great Yarmouth
Great Yarmouth is a straw man, there's a middle ground where you go somewhere more relatable like Majorca and have a fuck-off posh time punctuated by a photo op at a waterpark or something (which is why they have to go to ghastly Disneyland incidentally)
"not gonna shift a single opinion" is always a dodgy claim. There's literally tens of millions of voters out there in all sorts of states of misinformed hebephrenia, and any of them could be swayed by any revelation.
Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
ETA Just seen this, he is working on the relatability after all
"He said his daughters, Krishna and Anoushka, were “very excited” about the prospect of visiting Disneyland.
The prime minister, a self-confessed “huge Star Wars fan”, joked that his daughters were worried they would spend too much time at Disneyland’s new Star Wars area.
Sunak has a sizeable collection of lightsabers and has previously described Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, chancellor and home secretary, as his “Jedi Master” before a 2019 screening of The Rise of Skywalker."
This isn't going to hurt Sunak at all. Those that loathe/reject him for being so rich are already baked in to his polling
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
Disneyland features on many working class British people's lists of Places I'd Go If I Won The Lottery. You might think of it as a riffraff destination and not at all in the same category as Bequia, but that's not how most voters think of it.
But they already know he’s massively rich.
And a lot of Brits - even working class Brits - go to Florida. And Disneyland
Sunak has issues and his wealth does not help but this is non runner in the wider scheme
More doubts about the indictment, and apparently a majority verdict is not sufficient - has to be unanimous. A scary thought: Trump might want the trial to come early in the expectation of being acquitted, which would probably give him a significant bounce...
The way the right seem to speak is that anyone who is vaguely left of centre is somehow thick if they don't agree with them.
This feels awfully like Labour in 2019, calling all voters who weren't like them, thick.
Perhaps it's that some people genuinely think being left-wing is okay and they have these beliefs sincerely? Why do they have to be brainwashed or thick.
Perhaps the right should try and understand young people.
A fair point, but to some extent matched by those on the left who think those on the right are 'evil' etc
They are mirror images of each other, complete with
"I don't hate people. And the lowering of the tine of political discourse is terrible.
Of course, X are inhuman scum who need to be tortured to death."
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
I agree... but I'm simply saying he can't solve that by pretending not to be wealthy, and shouldn't bother. Indeed, it risks drawing attention to it in a kind of "I want to live like common people..." way.
Sunak's image problem is exacerbated by the fact that he married into extreme wealth rather than being a self-made man, so he can't really lean in to it either.
Which really masks the fact that he was successful himself before entering politics.
David Cameron married someone who come from an estate in Sheffield.
There are two polite, handsome happy boys on the terrace of my weirdly chic hotel in Chernivtsi, Ukraine. Age 17?
If they were my sons, the temptation to whisk them out of the country, away from the war and the draft, would be irresistible. From the age of 18, men cannot leave Ukraine
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sadly this is probably true, yet Starmer is almost certainly not having to choose the cheaper options in his food shop either.
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
I was ready to consider Sunak's wealth as a plus because I thought he was less likely to be attracted to dodgy decisions for personal gain. I now don't think that, because I still think he's very interested in accumulating wealth (perhaps that's not his wife's), and because I get the impression that No. 10 is just a stepping stone on the way to being a California 'tech-bro', or toward getting some other gig (Worldbank, IMF etc.), and that sort of person cannot really be trusted to factor the interests of the good people of Slough and Hartlepool into their decisions.
The way the right seem to speak is that anyone who is vaguely left of centre is somehow thick if they don't agree with them.
This feels awfully like Labour in 2019, calling all voters who weren't like them, thick.
Perhaps it's that some people genuinely think being left-wing is okay and they have these beliefs sincerely? Why do they have to be brainwashed or thick.
Perhaps the right should try and understand young people.
A fair point, but to some extent matched by those on the left who think those on the right are 'evil' etc
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
The article also says this though:
"The chart gave the impression, at least on first glance, that two-thirds of 12th-grade boys were now conservative. In the small print beneath, Twenge noted that she had omitted moderates.
The full story is messier and murkier. High school seniors, boys and girls alike, are more likely to claim no political identity than to throw in with either liberals or conservatives."
Yes. Hence "trending"
It is not a dramatic swing, not yet. But it is a very interesting trend
It tallies entirely with what my friends are experiencing with their teenage boys - in the UK. They either love Andrew Tate or they are, at least, intrigued by him. They've all heard of him. Andrew Tate certainly does not tell them they are "toxic" just coz they are boys
No. Andrew Tait tells them that girls are toxic just coz they are girls. Nobody in education or parenting is telling young men they are " "toxic" just coz they are boys ". But they might be telling them they have to be respectful of others and can't treat women as property. I know, its a shame from some perspectives...
Set Leftie dissonance phasers to the max, Scottie.
We have two sets of young cismen who are deeply unhappy for gender/sex related reasons; respectively that they are not, and cannot get, girls. It seems rational in both cases to try to understand, and think of ways to alleviate, the unhappiness. Not in case A to ooze empatheticness like a really oozy thing and in case B to do a sort of Victor Meldrew Absolute nonsense, brought it on themselves, I never had this problem growing up in the '40s, entirely their own fault for playing video games and watching youtube. I'm expecting a suggestion that bringing back National Service would sort them out.
Isn't the fact DeSantis doesn't mention Trump by name actually an indication of how bad his own campaign for the nomination has been, rather than some clever trick he's pulled off?
The entire GOP nomination process is so totally dominated by Trump, and the conversation so centred on him, that his opponents don't need to say they are talking about Trump... because why would they ever talk about anyone or anything else?
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
I agree... but I'm simply saying he can't solve that by pretending not to be wealthy, and shouldn't bother. Indeed, it risks drawing attention to it in a kind of "I want to live like common people..." way.
Sunak's image problem is exacerbated by the fact that he married into extreme wealth rather than being a self-made man, so he can't really lean in to it either.
Messier than that.
He became fabulously but imaginably wealthy under his own steam- though I suspect his job fails the Mitchell and Webb Old Lady test. Then he married into unimaginable wealth.
And whilst I'm sure there is a decent chunk of noblesse oblige public service in his entering politics, he's a much less convincing Earl of Grantham than, say David Cameron was.
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sadly this is probably true, yet Starmer is almost certainly not having to choose the cheaper options in his food shop either.
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
I was ready to consider Sunak's wealth as a plus because I thought he was less likely to be attracted to dodgy decisions for personal gain. I now don't think that, because I still think he's very interested in accumulating wealth (perhaps that's not his wife's), and because I get the impression that No. 10 is just a stepping stone on the way to being a California 'tech-bro', or toward getting some other gig (Worldbank, IMF etc.), and that sort of person cannot really be trusted to factor the interests of the good people of Slough and Hartlepool into their decisions.
I think it was Tony Blair who was shocked to discover the real world impact of changes to booking appointments to the GP to be within 48 hours, meant that GP's simply would refuse to book appointments for longer than that. It was a simple example of a PM being out of touch - no surprise as he would not be using a GP.
All PM's struggle to understand the lives of those at the bottom. Sunak is no exception but he has made gaffs that make it seem so much worse (petrol station etc). It IS an issue in the way that it wasn't for Cameron. Cameron, I think, was seen as an upper middle class type - well off enough to use private schools for the kids, but still using the NHS and having to think about money (even if that was just the 'impression' given. I'm not even sure that the Cornwall surfing holidays were that fake - Rock and Padstow simply crawls with those types for 8 weeks a year.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
It's an issue but it is hardly a revalation
"Rich man takes pleasant family on hols to California" is not gonna shift a single opinion
As @SirNorfolkPassmore correctly notes, it would be far worse if Sunak tried to hide this and pretended to enjoy his week in Great Yarmouth
Great Yarmouth is a straw man, there's a middle ground where you go somewhere more relatable like Majorca and have a fuck-off posh time punctuated by a photo op at a waterpark or something (which is why they have to go to ghastly Disneyland incidentally)
"not gonna shift a single opinion" is always a dodgy claim. There's literally tens of millions of voters out there in all sorts of states of misinformed hebephrenia, and any of them could be swayed by any revelation.
He’s the British PM with a major security detail so he would need to rent a massive private villa in Majorca, with defensible space and the rest
That’s £10-20k a week in August. The tabloids would be all over it. Then papping him as he pretends to have a pint in the cerveceria
California is far enough away most people won’t really understand where he’s staying and all the houses are big and private anyway. And there are fewer tabloid journalists or snooping British holidaymakers
Also I’m pretty sure Disneyland is a real choice. He has kids. All kids wanna go to Disneyland
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
Rishi has also announced that he’s off to California this afternoon on his “vacays”. As he probably refers to them, the moment he leaves British airspace.
God that is tone deaf even by his standards.It's not like he has to keep up the Easyjet to the Med pretence longer than this summer and next. Even Dave managed this.
Really? Didn't Brown like going to Cape Cod? Is holidaying in California such a big deal?
Brown was not a billionaire with a helicopter and a non dom wife. Cape Cod did not feed in to an existing rich, out of touch, not one of us narrative.
ETA Just seen this, he is working on the relatability after all
"He said his daughters, Krishna and Anoushka, were “very excited” about the prospect of visiting Disneyland.
The prime minister, a self-confessed “huge Star Wars fan”, joked that his daughters were worried they would spend too much time at Disneyland’s new Star Wars area.
Sunak has a sizeable collection of lightsabers and has previously described Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, chancellor and home secretary, as his “Jedi Master” before a 2019 screening of The Rise of Skywalker."
This isn't going to hurt Sunak at all. Those that loathe/reject him for being so rich are already baked in to his polling
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
Disneyland features on many working class British people's lists of Places I'd Go If I Won The Lottery. You might think of it as a riffraff destination and not at all in the same category as Bequia, but that's not how most voters think of it.
But they already know he’s massively rich.
And a lot of Brits - even working class Brits - go to Florida. And Disneyland
Sunak has issues and his wealth does not help but this is non runner in the wider scheme
GE 24 is going to be vicious. Lab would be mad not to be working on a not one of us, internationalist, citizen of nowhere smear. This helps them
This will be Disneyland in Anaheim, California. Not Florida.
I wish I were merely an obsessive. I am so much worse than that.
I once saw a 'mechanic' in a bike shop using a Philips driver instead of a JIS to adjust the H/L limit screws on a rear mech. I locked the shop door and put the CLOSED sign up while I had a gentle word with him.
This fact probably explains why every second hand bike I’ve seen has wrecked limit screws.
A query to the wise: is it permissible to use a Pozidriv screwdriver in a JIS screw head? Or am I supposed to obtain a JIS screwdriver for this one job?
Get the JIS. It's just the right thing to do. Also useful for carb float bowls on old Japanese motorbikes and the swash plates on really expensive RC helicopters.
You might be a weird obsessive, and I'll likely never touch any of those things, but I agree with you on this.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sadly this is probably true, yet Starmer is almost certainly not having to choose the cheaper options in his food shop either.
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
I was ready to consider Sunak's wealth as a plus because I thought he was less likely to be attracted to dodgy decisions for personal gain. I now don't think that, because I still think he's very interested in accumulating wealth (perhaps that's not his wife's), and because I get the impression that No. 10 is just a stepping stone on the way to being a California 'tech-bro', or toward getting some other gig (Worldbank, IMF etc.), and that sort of person cannot really be trusted to factor the interests of the good people of Slough and Hartlepool into their decisions.
I think it was Tony Blair who was shocked to discover the real world impact of changes to booking appointments to the GP to be within 48 hours, meant that GP's simply would refuse to book appointments for longer than that. It was a simple example of a PM being out of touch - no surprise as he would not be using a GP.
All PM's struggle to understand the lives of those at the bottom. Sunak is no exception but he has made gaffs that make it seem so much worse (petrol station etc). It IS an issue in the way that it wasn't for Cameron. Cameron, I think, was seen as an upper middle class type - well off enough to use private schools for the kids, but still using the NHS and having to think about money (even if that was just the 'impression' given. I'm not even sure that the Cornwall surfing holidays were that fake - Rock and Padstow simply crawls with those types for 8 weeks a year.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
Meh. Steady Eddy doesn't work when your trajectory is steadily off a cliff. Our BOP deficit, flabby useless public sector/quangos, cost of net zero, energy security issues, immigration numbers, strangled housing supply - these are serious problems that Truss, deluded or not, had a plan to deal with. Sunak's plan is essentially not to deal with them but to look sober whilst (not) doing so. We've run out of road for that approach.
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sunak's political problem is that he's extremely rich and he also believes in the smallest possible State.
He actually has no interest in the NHS for instance. He would be quite happy for it to disappear. This is such an eccentric position that people don't believe it and think it's just he's rich and will never need to use the NHS.
I think the public would accept very wealthy leaders but with noblesse there is oblige.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Isn't the fact DeSantis doesn't mention Trump by name actually an indication of how bad his own campaign for the nomination has been, rather than some clever trick he's pulled off?
The entire GOP nomination process is so totally dominated by Trump, and the conversation so centred on him, that his opponents don't need to say they are talking about Trump... because why would they ever talk about anyone or anything else?
RDS is trying to triangulate his own (by all reports, failing) campaign, into the issue of Trump being charged. But he knows that every time he mentions his opponent, DJT’s ratings rise. RDS is being undermined by his own campaign team, and seems to have no direction or policy that works outside Florida.
I was sceptical that RDS would enter this race in the first place, he’d have been way better off waiting until 2028.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
Isn't the fact DeSantis doesn't mention Trump by name actually an indication of how bad his own campaign for the nomination has been, rather than some clever trick he's pulled off?
The entire GOP nomination process is so totally dominated by Trump, and the conversation so centred on him, that his opponents don't need to say they are talking about Trump... because why would they ever talk about anyone or anything else?
He been criticised by the MAGA crew for saying he'd pardon Trump, since contemplating even the possibility of the Orange being found guilty is nothing short of treason.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
What realistic mechanism was there for Sunak to become PM before Partygate?
The scandal first broke towards the end of 2021 at a time when the Conservatives had a small poll lead and had enjoyed a pretty successful year electorally. The Owen Paterson affair was unhelpful to Johnson among backbenchers, but it certainly wasn't obvious at that it was irretrievable or that he was fatally damaged.
The collapse began in December 2021, in polls and the North Shropshire by-election. But Labour still only had single digit leads much of the time, and Johnson survived a confidence vote even after bad elections in May 2022.
Even when Johnson went, Sunak wasn't able to win the leadership vote and never really looked likely to amongst the membership.
So I'm not sure he can be criticised for sitting around and going at the wrong time. This isn't David Miliband or Michael Portillo fluffing an opportunity to strike - I don't really see when you think he was meant to do it other than when he did?
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sunak's political problem is that he's extremely rich and he also believes in the smallest possible State.
He actually has no interest in the NHS for instance. He would be quite happy for it to disappear. This is such an eccentric position that people don't believe it and think it's just he's rich and will never need to use the NHS.
I think the public would accept very wealthy leaders but with noblesse there is oblige.
“He actually has no interest in the NHS for instance. He would be quite happy for it to disappear.”
With respect, I struggle to understand how you could have come to that conclusion.
From where I’m standing there’s a massive amount of evidence for the opposing argument, and not much in support.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sadly this is probably true, yet Starmer is almost certainly not having to choose the cheaper options in his food shop either.
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
I was ready to consider Sunak's wealth as a plus because I thought he was less likely to be attracted to dodgy decisions for personal gain. I now don't think that, because I still think he's very interested in accumulating wealth (perhaps that's not his wife's), and because I get the impression that No. 10 is just a stepping stone on the way to being a California 'tech-bro', or toward getting some other gig (Worldbank, IMF etc.), and that sort of person cannot really be trusted to factor the interests of the good people of Slough and Hartlepool into their decisions.
I think it was Tony Blair who was shocked to discover the real world impact of changes to booking appointments to the GP to be within 48 hours, meant that GP's simply would refuse to book appointments for longer than that. It was a simple example of a PM being out of touch - no surprise as he would not be using a GP.
All PM's struggle to understand the lives of those at the bottom. Sunak is no exception but he has made gaffs that make it seem so much worse (petrol station etc). It IS an issue in the way that it wasn't for Cameron. Cameron, I think, was seen as an upper middle class type - well off enough to use private schools for the kids, but still using the NHS and having to think about money (even if that was just the 'impression' given. I'm not even sure that the Cornwall surfing holidays were that fake - Rock and Padstow simply crawls with those types for 8 weeks a year.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
Agree with all this. I do believe Truss and Sunak share the same small state ideology. Sunak is nowhere as deluded as Truss, and is better for it. But Truss never really demonstrated how bankrupt that ideology is because she crashed and burned first. Meanwhile Sunak has to trim and turn on the ideology because he's not an idiot, like she is. People who wrongly think he's something of a centrist are baffled by it all.
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sadly this is probably true, yet Starmer is almost certainly not having to choose the cheaper options in his food shop either.
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
I was ready to consider Sunak's wealth as a plus because I thought he was less likely to be attracted to dodgy decisions for personal gain. I now don't think that, because I still think he's very interested in accumulating wealth (perhaps that's not his wife's), and because I get the impression that No. 10 is just a stepping stone on the way to being a California 'tech-bro', or toward getting some other gig (Worldbank, IMF etc.), and that sort of person cannot really be trusted to factor the interests of the good people of Slough and Hartlepool into their decisions.
I think it was Tony Blair who was shocked to discover the real world impact of changes to booking appointments to the GP to be within 48 hours, meant that GP's simply would refuse to book appointments for longer than that. It was a simple example of a PM being out of touch - no surprise as he would not be using a GP.
All PM's struggle to understand the lives of those at the bottom. Sunak is no exception but he has made gaffs that make it seem so much worse (petrol station etc). It IS an issue in the way that it wasn't for Cameron. Cameron, I think, was seen as an upper middle class type - well off enough to use private schools for the kids, but still using the NHS and having to think about money (even if that was just the 'impression' given. I'm not even sure that the Cornwall surfing holidays were that fake - Rock and Padstow simply crawls with those types for 8 weeks a year.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
Agree with all this. I do believe Truss and Sunak share the same small state ideology. Sunak is nowhere as deluded as Truss, and is better for it. But Truss never really demonstrated how bankrupt that ideology is because she crashed and burned first. Meanwhile Sunak
Pull the other one with this small state stuff - how much has Sunak shrunk the state by?
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
Slight problem is that the Labour Party and its lightweight leadership doesn't care about "the common man" any more than the Conservative Party does as a collective. It is a sad reality that our system has become so polarised that both parties only "care" about their own voters. The Labour view is that if the Common Man doesn't fully sign up to their agenda then he can go fuck himself.
And if you really believe that a bunch of second raters most of whom wouldn't be capable of running the proverbial whelk stall will be able to "rescue the NHS (praise it's holy name), schools and even "etc." then I have a bridge to sell you. You will be sorely disappointed.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Tut
The trend, my friend: the trend
The trend: I think this I am a reasonable person All reasonable people must think this
Wot? You *don't* think this? Thats coz you is woke.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
Slight problem is that the Labour Party and its lightweight leadership doesn't care about "the common man" any more than the Conservative Party does as a collective. It is a sad reality that our system has become so polarised that both parties only "care" about their own voters. The Labour view is that if the Common Man doesn't fully sign up to their agenda then he can go fuck himself.
And if you really believe that a bunch of second raters most of whom wouldn't be capable of running the proverbial whelk stall will be able to "rescue the NHS (praise it's holy name), schools and even "etc." then I have a bridge to sell you. You will be sorely disappointed.
Second raters? That's a good rate or two better than we have right now.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Maybe that is the present day reality for these "young" people . When they actually experience how shit your party is they wake up and realise that if you want to actually make things happen from a political perspective it is best not to put a bunch of people in charge that in the real world would struggle to hold down a post in lower middle management.
(by the way, your party gets a free ride until the Conservative Party starts to looks serious and everyone forgets about Boris Johnson in the same way that most people have forgotten about Corbyn - so should be a very long time perhaps?)
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
Indeed. You tell someone often enough they are sexist, they'll give up fighting you and say, well, I guess I am then.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
Slight problem is that the Labour Party and its lightweight leadership doesn't care about "the common man" any more than the Conservative Party does as a collective. It is a sad reality that our system has become so polarised that both parties only "care" about their own voters. The Labour view is that if the Common Man doesn't fully sign up to their agenda then he can go fuck himself.
And if you really believe that a bunch of second raters most of whom wouldn't be capable of running the proverbial whelk stall will be able to "rescue the NHS (praise it's holy name), schools and even "etc." then I have a bridge to sell you. You will be sorely disappointed.
Second raters? That's a good rate or two better than we have right now.
Possibly , but hardly a ringing endorsement for a party that wants people to believe it has the answers. Tell me anyone on the Labour front bench that has serious gravitas and doesn't look and sound like someone who would struggle to get promoted above the paygrade of David Brent.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
Indeed. You tell someone often enough they are sexist, they'll give up fighting you and say, well, I guess I am then.
And then you get a liberal Twat like Caitlin Moran writing a naff book on “what men really want” like she knows or cares
Isn't the fact DeSantis doesn't mention Trump by name actually an indication of how bad his own campaign for the nomination has been, rather than some clever trick he's pulled off?
The entire GOP nomination process is so totally dominated by Trump, and the conversation so centred on him, that his opponents don't need to say they are talking about Trump... because why would they ever talk about anyone or anything else?
RDS is trying to triangulate his own (by all reports, failing) campaign, into the issue of Trump being charged. But he knows that every time he mentions his opponent, DJT’s ratings rise. RDS is being undermined by his own campaign team, and seems to have no direction or policy that works outside Florida.
I was sceptical that RDS would enter this race in the first place, he’d have been way better off waiting until 2028.
In some ways he is waiting until 2028. His campaign absolutely reeks of trying to do well enough to put himself in pole position next time. He's not doing well at that, partly because it's an uninspiring basis for a campaign, and partly he is just a poor campaigner.
But there are major risks of waiting. Firstly, lots can go wrong as big state Governor and good ratings can be very fleeting (ask Andrew Cuomo or Chris Christie for instance - both credible future nominees for their parties at one time - Christie is of course running now, but mainly for sh1ts and giggles). Secondly, if you don't grab pole position, someone else may. Ramaswamy and Scott are both running on an essentially pro-Trump ticket and may yet eclipse DeSantis... but remember one of them would definitely eclipse him if he wasn't in the race.
So I agree it's not going well for him, but that doesn't mean he'd have been better sitting it out - it means he's a flawed candidate.
Of course Sunak can go to California for his holidays. But it reminds folk that he used to live and work there, has property there, presumably still has family business interests there, had a green card and, tangentially, of his wife's former non-dom status. I'm sure the DT and the Mail will question his long-term commitment to the UK. He could have chosen a more neutral rich person's playground. It's a bit like Corbyn holidaying in Venezuela, I guess.
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sadly this is probably true, yet Starmer is almost certainly not having to choose the cheaper options in his food shop either.
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
I was ready to consider Sunak's wealth as a plus because I thought he was less likely to be attracted to dodgy decisions for personal gain. I now don't think that, because I still think he's very interested in accumulating wealth (perhaps that's not his wife's), and because I get the impression that No. 10 is just a stepping stone on the way to being a California 'tech-bro', or toward getting some other gig (Worldbank, IMF etc.), and that sort of person cannot really be trusted to factor the interests of the good people of Slough and Hartlepool into their decisions.
I think it was Tony Blair who was shocked to discover the real world impact of changes to booking appointments to the GP to be within 48 hours, meant that GP's simply would refuse to book appointments for longer than that. It was a simple example of a PM being out of touch - no surprise as he would not be using a GP.
All PM's struggle to understand the lives of those at the bottom. Sunak is no exception but he has made gaffs that make it seem so much worse (petrol station etc). It IS an issue in the way that it wasn't for Cameron. Cameron, I think, was seen as an upper middle class type - well off enough to use private schools for the kids, but still using the NHS and having to think about money (even if that was just the 'impression' given. I'm not even sure that the Cornwall surfing holidays were that fake - Rock and Padstow simply crawls with those types for 8 weeks a year.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
Agree with all this. I do believe Truss and Sunak share the same small state ideology. Sunak is nowhere as deluded as Truss, and is better for it. But Truss never really demonstrated how bankrupt that ideology is because she crashed and burned first. Meanwhile Sunak
Pull the other one with this small state stuff - how much has Sunak shrunk the state by?
If Sunak were to shrink himself we wouldnt be able to see him.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
I'd be suprised if it's more than a quite small minority (ETA: of young men who have a real problem with that - the danger is that young men who have various problems are persuaded by the likes of Tate to blame women, rather than actually sorting out their problems).
But, even if that is true - what do you suggest? We invite the Taliban over to run things? Women are good at stuff, therefore they are now, much less* discriminated against than before, doing well. Is that a bad thing?
Anecdote: About four years back our (POTS copper) broadband was on the blink and I eventually persuaded the call centre bods it wasn't me using a toaster for a router and there was a real issue. The Openreach engineer was a woman and she was just about done and we were having a chat when she said that I was just about the first person not to have commented that she was a woman (she was about two months into the job - most comments hadn't been negative, but people had asked her about it). I work in a technical area, with lots of women, so it hadn't occurred to me, but clearly it still seemed unusual to a lot of people. There are still lots of areas where women are underepresented mainly for perception/possibly unwelcoming cuture reasons (and also some for men, of course).
*there are still areas where women are massively underrepresented for no good reason
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Tut
The trend, my friend: the trend
A graph from one of the studies linked in that The Hill article:
Different data set, sure, but also a more honest presentation (not excluding the largest group, for starters).
Have you read "How to lie with statistics"? It's awfully good.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
I do love your commentary, but you don't half write some bollocks at times. Like now.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Isn't the fact DeSantis doesn't mention Trump by name actually an indication of how bad his own campaign for the nomination has been, rather than some clever trick he's pulled off?
The entire GOP nomination process is so totally dominated by Trump, and the conversation so centred on him, that his opponents don't need to say they are talking about Trump... because why would they ever talk about anyone or anything else?
RDS is trying to triangulate his own (by all reports, failing) campaign, into the issue of Trump being charged. But he knows that every time he mentions his opponent, DJT’s ratings rise. RDS is being undermined by his own campaign team, and seems to have no direction or policy that works outside Florida.
I was sceptical that RDS would enter this race in the first place, he’d have been way better off waiting until 2028.
In some ways he is waiting until 2028. His campaign absolutely reeks of trying to do well enough to put himself in pole position next time. He's not doing well at that, partly because it's an uninspiring basis for a campaign, and partly he is just a poor campaigner.
But there are major risks of waiting. Firstly, lots can go wrong as big state Governor and good ratings can be very fleeting (ask Andrew Cuomo or Chris Christie for instance - both credible future nominees for their parties at one time - Christie is of course running now, but mainly for sh1ts and giggles). Secondly, if you don't grab pole position, someone else may. Ramaswamy and Scott are both running on an essentially pro-Trump ticket and may yet eclipse DeSantis... but remember one of them would definitely eclipse him if he wasn't in the race.
So I agree it's not going well for him, but that doesn't mean he'd have been better sitting it out - it means he's a flawed candidate.
The only thing that tells me RDS hasn’t screwed up forever, is the presence of Chris Christie in this race; he could well be the Trump-falls-under-a-bus candidate.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Tut
The trend, my friend: the trend
A graph from one of the studies linked in that The Hill article:
Different data set, sure, but also a more honest presentation (not excluding the largest group, for starters).
Have you read "How to lie with statistics"? It's awfully good.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
Say no! You will not control me! No! You will not take my soul! No! You will not win this game!
You are embedding this thought. I am the one who is in charge. I am the one who says Yes! No! Now!
HERE.
Its universal, man! It is evolutional, it is anthropological, it is biological, it is animal.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
“the weaponisation of government” = not letting politicians get away with crimes ? Chris Christie is telling it like it is "Chris Christie: Donald Trump is a liar and a coward"
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Tut
The trend, my friend: the trend
A graph from one of the studies linked in that The Hill article:
Different data set, sure, but also a more honest presentation (not excluding the largest group, for starters).
Have you read "How to lie with statistics"? It's awfully good.
MASSIVE turnaround from 2016! Trump owned the libtards good and proper.
What? Selective reporting?
ETA: MASSIVE turnaround in/after 12th grade, too - from comparing those two graphs. Must be those lefty liberal teachers brainwashing the kids
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
I know it’s an unpopular view, but IMHO the Sunakites in the PCP, and their friends in the press, had decided in advance that they weren’t accepting the result of the leadership election. That was clear from the discussions during the campaign, and I suggested as such on this very forum.
The death of the Queen kinda got in the way somewhat, but they went hard for the new PM almost from the day Her Late Majesty was buried in Windsor.
His supporters will (and are) already dismissing it as politically motivated bulls**t, designed to cover for the corrupt Biden family, and because they know he’s the greatest ever President who will win again, which is why the Establishment wants to get him of the ballot.
Whether that sentiment resonates with the wider US electorate, on the other hand, is a question best left to the reader.
His supporters are batshit crazy. Hopefully the typical wider American electorate is not.
There is an uncanny amount of similarity between Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump, so perhaps like his British equivalent it will take a second electoral defeat in November next year to provide the stake through the heart that his form of politics so richly really needs.
Hopefully 6 January was the equivalent of Salisbury where the wider electorate saw his true colors [sic].
You'd think so, but people who had stepped back from him on that day like Lindsey Graham are now even more firmly in his corner.
That seems to apply to general supporters as well, given a bunch of them don't try to excuse January 6th they practically call the rioters heroes.
Hopefully independents have seen his true colours, but how many of the 1 in 4 or 5 GOP voters who are against him won't vote for him? People who stood up to him trying to overturn the election are still voting for him!
That's a bit of the parallel for Corbyn.
Even many who resiled from anti Semitism or Salisbury were still willing to back him by election day. But not all voters were and the result was an even more comprehensive defeat.
Afterwards the second defeat even former supporters largely went away from backing him anymore en mass leaving only a hardcore tiny and irrelevant rump left.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Have you actually read the link? Basically most American kids at school say they aren't liberal or conservative, with a minority leaning conservative (boys, by 31-24, much the same as 20 years earlier) or liberal (girls) (giving a small liberal drift overall because more girls are becoming more liberall).
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
Tut
The trend, my friend: the trend
A graph from one of the studies linked in that The Hill article:
Different data set, sure, but also a more honest presentation (not excluding the largest group, for starters).
Have you read "How to lie with statistics"? It's awfully good.
i was having a laugh, using a Daily Mail/Lib Dem infographic
Tho the trend is indeed, subtly, towards more conservative male teens: and we can all see why
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
There’s actually a lot of science on the effects of ‘dating apps’. What’s happening, is that 20% of men are getting 90% of the women, and 80% of the men are fighting over 10% of the women.
Funnily enough, a society where 70% of young men are involuntarily single, ends up with some form of a revolution.
“the weaponisation of government” = not letting politicians get away with crimes ? Chris Christie is telling it like it is "Chris Christie: Donald Trump is a liar and a coward"
Christie will have his place in history as one of the few GOP with the guts to speak out.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
And there we are again. It’s the man’s fault for being a “smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke man”. We see this all the time on PB. A total inability to grasp that, actually, there may be a real problem in the way western society is increasingly structured - sometimes deliberately, sometimes by sheer bad luck - against men
Would you ever write a comment blaming “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke women” or “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke Indians”?
No, you absolutely would not, yet men are fair game. Consider that
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
I know it’s an unpopular view, but IMHO the Sunakites in the PCP, and their friends in the press, had decided in advance that they weren’t accepting the result of the leadership election. That was clear from the discussions during the campaign, and I suggested as such on this very forum.
The death of the Queen kinda got in the way somewhat, but they went hard for the new PM almost from the day Her Late Majesty was buried in Windsor.
The briefings were constant and damaging. Of course by the same 'entitled to rule' element that now thinks everyone should 'get behind Rishi' despite the fact that the economy is in a worse state under him than in the aftermath of the mini-budget.
And anyone who thinks Sunak is a nice guy at the centre of this should remember that he selected Gavin Williamson as his campaign manager, and take note of his own bitchy buck-passing comments about past leaders that were entirely absent from the reportoire of his predecessors.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
Cars are ace. I love them. I genuinely love my new T6.1 Transporter. But I love my Nukeproof Scout hardtail as well, and I'm going to love my cargo ebike just as much. We don't have to chose one over the other, but use them together in the most eco friendly way. Demonising car owners just creates enemies, same as demonising cyclists does. Horses for courses and all that!
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
And there we are again. It’s the man’s fault for being a “smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke man”. We see this all the time on PB. A total inability to grasp that, actually, there may be a real problem in the way western society is increasingly structured - sometimes deliberately, sometimes by sheer bad luck - against men
Would you ever write a comment blaming “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke women” or “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke Indians”?
No, you absolutely would not, yet men are fair game. Consider that
Yes, I would, why not.
Anyone who is smelly, whiney, unambitious and broke has only themselves to blame.
That's always been my opinion. Yes bad luck happens, and there's a welfare net for that for essentials (which does not include finding you a relationship), but that's it.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
Cars are ace. I love them. I genuinely love my new T6.1 Transporter. But I love my Nukeproof Scout hardtail as well, and I'm going to love my cargo ebike just as much. We don't have to chose one over the other, but use them together in the most eco friendly way. Demonising car owners just creates enemies, same as demonising cyclists dies. Horses for courses and all that!
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
I know it’s an unpopular view, but IMHO the Sunakites in the PCP, and their friends in the press, had decided in advance that they weren’t accepting the result of the leadership election. That was clear from the discussions during the campaign, and I suggested as such on this very forum.
The death of the Queen kinda got in the way somewhat, but they went hard for the new PM almost from the day Her Late Majesty was buried in Windsor.
Truss did give them a lot (and I mean A LOT) of material to work with. The special budget thing was purely self-inflicted; hubris followed by nemesis. That mad hour of interviews with BBC Radio Localshire. Losing her first pick as Chancellor, then her first pick as Home Secretary. Hard to pin any of that on the Sunakites.
Sunak is not a good Prime Minister, and may not even be an adequate one. But neither was Truss. The fact that BoJo put them in the prime "heirs apparent" positions (in the same way that Nixon made Agnew his Veep to make sure that nobody would dare assassinate him) ought to have been a giveaway about how mediocre they both were.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
I know it’s an unpopular view, but IMHO the Sunakites in the PCP, and their friends in the press, had decided in advance that they weren’t accepting the result of the leadership election. That was clear from the discussions during the campaign, and I suggested as such on this very forum.
The death of the Queen kinda got in the way somewhat, but they went hard for the new PM almost from the day Her Late Majesty was buried in Windsor.
Because the operation to bring down BoJo was intended to lead to Sunak walking into Downing Street without any serious opposition. Truss getting the better of him in the leadership election wasn't in the plan.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
I know it’s an unpopular view, but IMHO the Sunakites in the PCP, and their friends in the press, had decided in advance that they weren’t accepting the result of the leadership election. That was clear from the discussions during the campaign, and I suggested as such on this very forum.
The death of the Queen kinda got in the way somewhat, but they went hard for the new PM almost from the day Her Late Majesty was buried in Windsor.
The briefings were constant and damaging. Of course by the same 'entitled to rule' element that now thinks everyone should 'get behind Rishi' despite the fact that the economy is in a worse state under him than in the aftermath of the mini-budget.
And anyone who thinks Sunak is a nice guy at the centre of this should remember that he selected Gavin Williamson as his campaign manager, and take note of his own bitchy buck-passing comments about past leaders that were entirely absent from the reportoire of his predecessors.
I agree with you, albeit from a different political perspective. The notion that Sunak is a "nice, well-meaning, caring guy", which is the prevailing mantra, is, I think, utter tosh. I think he's secretly pretty evil (probably too strong a word), and not so secretly manipulative and untrustworthy.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges ...
Women's what??
Could you list them out please? Because we still get largely ignored by men, underpaid for the work we do and in some cultures as regarded as little better than slaves or wombs for producing more boys. I have not even got started on misogyny and violence against us or the medical profession's lack of interest in our general health...
... and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
Smelly and whiny are down near the bottom of the list as are sexist and violent idiots. Not speaking for others but my list was simple - someone who shared some interests with me, was fun, intelligent and clean.
Comments
I do not believe there is a single British voter who will say, "OhMyGod well known billionaire Rishi Sunak is going to somewhere in California for his holibobs???? That's it, he's lost my previously loyal support"
It would actually be worse - ie it might at least have some impact - if he chose somewhere notoriously chic and expensive in the Med or the Caribbean
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
Certainly, Sunak is very wealthy indeed, and that's not ideal politically in a cost of living crisis.
But there it is. Taking a holiday in a static caravan in Prestatyn wouldn't make him look like a man of the people - it'd make him look like a billionaire staying, for political reasons, in a static caravan in Prestatyn.
So, to the extent his great wealth is a drawback for him, that's priced in. I don't think being ostentatiously frugal can really deal with it, so don't bother and have a nice holiday with the family.
"Rich man takes pleasant family on hols to California" is not gonna shift a single opinion
As @SirNorfolkPassmore correctly notes, it would be far worse if Sunak tried to hide this and pretended to enjoy his week in Great Yarmouth
Just because the press won’t have photos of it…
Interesting that, though. Does the iPhone do a real rotate on all portrait captured images, rather than just metadata? Or do the apps/Safari etc do a real rotate before upload?
*obviously it is actually a lot of phones, given sales, but you know what I mean
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
Quite a lot of people seem to do West Coast driving holidays.
"not gonna shift a single opinion" is always a dodgy claim. There's literally tens of millions of voters out there in all sorts of states of misinformed hebephrenia, and any of them could be swayed by any revelation.
And a lot of Brits - even working class Brits - go to Florida. And Disneyland
Sunak has issues and his wealth does not help but this is non runner in the wider scheme
https://thedispatch.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&chash=4dcae38ee11d3a6606cc6cd636a3628b.1632&nosocial=1
"I don't hate people. And the lowering of the tine of political discourse is terrible.
Of course, X are inhuman scum who need to be tortured to death."
David Cameron married someone who come from an estate in Sheffield.
If they were my sons, the temptation to whisk them out of the country, away from the war and the draft, would be irresistible. From the age of 18, men cannot leave Ukraine
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/08/02/desantis-on-trump-indictment-charges-unfair-trial-dc-swamp/
We have two sets of young cismen who are deeply unhappy for gender/sex related reasons; respectively that they are not, and cannot get, girls. It seems rational in both cases to try to understand, and think of ways to alleviate, the unhappiness. Not in case A to ooze empatheticness like a really oozy thing and in case B to do a sort of Victor Meldrew Absolute nonsense, brought it on themselves, I never had this problem growing up in the '40s, entirely their own fault for playing video games and watching youtube. I'm expecting a suggestion that bringing back National Service would sort them out.
I wonder why the difference.
The entire GOP nomination process is so totally dominated by Trump, and the conversation so centred on him, that his opponents don't need to say they are talking about Trump... because why would they ever talk about anyone or anything else?
He became fabulously but imaginably wealthy under his own steam- though I suspect his job fails the Mitchell and Webb Old Lady test. Then he married into unimaginable wealth.
And whilst I'm sure there is a decent chunk of noblesse oblige public service in his entering politics, he's a much less convincing Earl of Grantham than, say David Cameron was.
All PM's struggle to understand the lives of those at the bottom. Sunak is no exception but he has made gaffs that make it seem so much worse (petrol station etc). It IS an issue in the way that it wasn't for Cameron. Cameron, I think, was seen as an upper middle class type - well off enough to use private schools for the kids, but still using the NHS and having to think about money (even if that was just the 'impression' given. I'm not even sure that the Cornwall surfing holidays were that fake - Rock and Padstow simply crawls with those types for 8 weeks a year.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
That’s £10-20k a week in August. The tabloids would be all over it. Then papping him as he pretends to have a pint in the cerveceria
California is far enough away most people won’t really understand where he’s staying and all the houses are big and private anyway. And there are fewer tabloid journalists or snooping British holidaymakers
Also I’m pretty sure Disneyland is a real choice. He has kids. All kids wanna go to Disneyland
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
This will be Disneyland in Anaheim, California. Not Florida.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He actually has no interest in the NHS for instance. He would be quite happy for it to disappear. This is such an eccentric position that people don't believe it and think it's just he's rich and will never need to use the NHS.
I think the public would accept very wealthy leaders but with noblesse there is oblige.
Meanwhile, in Britain the figures for the 18-34 group are Lab 61 Con 13 Green 11 LibDem 6. Even if ALL the Con 13 are male and young female Conservatives are EXTINCT, that's only a quarter of young men thinking of voting Conservative (https://t.co/CldiUwY4Ut).
I was sceptical that RDS would enter this race in the first place, he’d have been way better off waiting until 2028.
The scandal first broke towards the end of 2021 at a time when the Conservatives had a small poll lead and had enjoyed a pretty successful year electorally. The Owen Paterson affair was unhelpful to Johnson among backbenchers, but it certainly wasn't obvious at that it was irretrievable or that he was fatally damaged.
The collapse began in December 2021, in polls and the North Shropshire by-election. But Labour still only had single digit leads much of the time, and Johnson survived a confidence vote even after bad elections in May 2022.
Even when Johnson went, Sunak wasn't able to win the leadership vote and never really looked likely to amongst the membership.
So I'm not sure he can be criticised for sitting around and going at the wrong time. This isn't David Miliband or Michael Portillo fluffing an opportunity to strike - I don't really see when you think he was meant to do it other than when he did?
With respect, I struggle to understand how you could have come to that conclusion.
From where I’m standing there’s a massive amount of evidence for the opposing argument, and not much in support.
But I’m interested in why you think that?
https://crooked.com/podcast-series/pod-save-america/
And they were not wrong.
Also, the Chris Christie interview is interesting.
He could be a fun watch in the debates, should Trump turn up.
The trend, my friend: the trend
And if you really believe that a bunch of second raters most of whom wouldn't be capable of running the proverbial whelk stall will be able to "rescue the NHS (praise it's holy name), schools and even "etc." then I have a bridge to sell you. You will be sorely disappointed.
I think this
I am a reasonable person
All reasonable people must think this
Wot? You *don't* think this? Thats coz you is woke.
Lab 47% (nc)
Con 27% (+1)
Lib Dem 10% (+1)
Greens 4% (-1)
Other 12% (-1)
Not much change there then!
Tories doing great, super majority by Christmas!
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
(by the way, your party gets a free ride until the Conservative Party starts to looks serious and everyone forgets about Boris Johnson in the same way that most people have forgotten about Corbyn - so should be a very long time perhaps?)
It’s enough to start a Revolution
But there are major risks of waiting. Firstly, lots can go wrong as big state Governor and good ratings can be very fleeting (ask Andrew Cuomo or Chris Christie for instance - both credible future nominees for their parties at one time - Christie is of course running now, but mainly for sh1ts and giggles). Secondly, if you don't grab pole position, someone else may. Ramaswamy and Scott are both running on an essentially pro-Trump ticket and may yet eclipse DeSantis... but remember one of them would definitely eclipse him if he wasn't in the race.
So I agree it's not going well for him, but that doesn't mean he'd have been better sitting it out - it means he's a flawed candidate.
It's a bit like Corbyn holidaying in Venezuela, I guess.
But, even if that is true - what do you suggest? We invite the Taliban over to run things? Women are good at stuff, therefore they are now, much less* discriminated against than before, doing well. Is that a bad thing?
Anecdote: About four years back our (POTS copper) broadband was on the blink and I eventually persuaded the call centre bods it wasn't me using a toaster for a router and there was a real issue. The Openreach engineer was a woman and she was just about done and we were having a chat when she said that I was just about the first person not to have commented that she was a woman (she was about two months into the job - most comments hadn't been negative, but people had asked her about it). I work in a technical area, with lots of women, so it hadn't occurred to me, but clearly it still seemed unusual to a lot of people. There are still lots of areas where women are underepresented mainly for perception/possibly unwelcoming cuture reasons (and also some for men, of course).
*there are still areas where women are massively underrepresented for no good reason
Different data set, sure, but also a more honest presentation (not excluding the largest group, for starters).
Have you read "How to lie with statistics"? It's awfully good.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
No! You will not take my soul!
No! You will not win this game!
You are embedding this thought.
I am the one who is in charge.
I am the one who says Yes!
No!
Now!
HERE.
Its universal, man! It is evolutional, it is anthropological, it is biological, it is animal.
WE. ARE. MEN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbanWHx5AFQ
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
Chris Christie is telling it like it is
"Chris Christie: Donald Trump is a liar and a coward"
What? Selective reporting?
ETA: MASSIVE turnaround in/after 12th grade, too - from comparing those two graphs. Must be those lefty liberal teachers brainwashing the kids
The death of the Queen kinda got in the way somewhat, but they went hard for the new PM almost from the day Her Late Majesty was buried in Windsor.
Even many who resiled from anti Semitism or Salisbury were still willing to back him by election day. But not all voters were and the result was an even more comprehensive defeat.
Afterwards the second defeat even former supporters largely went away from backing him anymore en mass leaving only a hardcore tiny and irrelevant rump left.
Tho the trend is indeed, subtly, towards more conservative male teens: and we can all see why
Funnily enough, a society where 70% of young men are involuntarily single, ends up with some form of a revolution.
Would you ever write a comment blaming “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke women” or “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke Indians”?
No, you absolutely would not, yet men are fair game. Consider that
And anyone who thinks Sunak is a nice guy at the centre of this should remember that he selected Gavin Williamson as his campaign manager, and take note of his own bitchy buck-passing comments about past leaders that were entirely absent from the reportoire of his predecessors.
Anyone who is smelly, whiney, unambitious and broke has only themselves to blame.
That's always been my opinion. Yes bad luck happens, and there's a welfare net for that for essentials (which does not include finding you a relationship), but that's it.
Sunak is not a good Prime Minister, and may not even be an adequate one. But neither was Truss. The fact that BoJo put them in the prime "heirs apparent" positions (in the same way that Nixon made Agnew his Veep to make sure that nobody would dare assassinate him) ought to have been a giveaway about how mediocre they both were.
Could you list them out please? Because we still get largely ignored by men, underpaid for the work we do and in some cultures as regarded as little better than slaves or wombs for producing more boys. I have not even got started on misogyny and violence against us or the medical profession's lack of interest in our general health... Smelly and whiny are down near the bottom of the list as are sexist and violent idiots. Not speaking for others but my list was simple - someone who shared some interests with me, was fun, intelligent and clean.
1. Very old
2. Very stupid
3. Very sheltered and unworldly
4. Very geeky
Or a combo of these. Their tone-deaf cloth-eared remarks are otherwise inexplicable
My hunch is it’s usually a mix of 3 and 4, with a reasonable possibility of 1. PB-ers generally aren’t stupid