History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
Wedge confirmed.
How's that a wedge?
I am not holding my breath on the Tories doing anything about the in work workshy. They never do. They just ramp things up harder and harder on those on eg disability benefits, who are NOT the problem.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?
Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.
Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.
Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.
Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.
A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.
Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.
Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.
In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).
Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!
Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?
The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.
EDIT: oh, and Australians.
Welsh and Kiwis are sheep shaggers too.
Everyone knows that.
No, Bart, the Welsh are British, and as everyone knows....
'The British, the British, the British are best. I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.'
That's the English don't you know?
Sheepshagger is nicer for Welsh than saying the Welshman's dishonest and cheats when he can And little and dark, more like monkey than man He works underground with a lamp in his hat And he sings far too loud, far too often, and flat!
Mea culpa! Must use Google more and my ailing memory less.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I'd prefer Iain Banks films. I look at the sheer tightness and wit and ingenuity of The Bridge/Feersum Endjinn/Walking On Glass and the self-indulgent over-writing of the Culture stuff and I despair, there's a clue in the length of the things. The low point is probably the Ship Minds trying to be funny in Excession, like PD's least talented comedians on a slow news day.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?
Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.
Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.
Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.
Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.
A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.
Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.
Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.
In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).
Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!
Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?
The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I'd prefer Iain Banks films. I look at the sheer tightness and wit and ingenuity of The Bridge/Feersum Endjinn/Walking On Glass and the self-indulgent over-writing of the Culture stuff and I despair, there's a clue in the length of the things. The low point is probably the Ship Minds trying to be funny in Excession, like PD's least talented comedians on a slow news day.
There was a movie of Complicity and a TV series of Crow Road.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
Or it’s small because the country is poor, but it’s getting gradually bigger and more effective. As in places like India.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I'd prefer Iain Banks films. I look at the sheer tightness and wit and ingenuity of The Bridge/Feersum Endjinn/Walking On Glass and the self-indulgent over-writing of the Culture stuff and I despair, there's a clue in the length of the things. The low point is probably the Ship Minds trying to be funny in Excession, like PD's least talented comedians on a slow news day.
There was a movie of Complicity and a TV series of Crow Road.
Not seen either, but I was trying to compare sci fi with sci fi
ETA I see Feersum Endjinn is actually billed as Iain M, but it doesn't feel like it
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I suppose we are finally at the point both technically and commercially where you could do justice to the Confederation Universe. But it would have to be done as a TV series rather than a film series.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
Off thread - but even in the wake of tye biggest storm of the year, apparently, you can't beat south west England for a holiday.
At any rate, I'd rather be here in 17 degrees and changeable than in Europe and baking. And I'd certainly rather be here than in Europe in the rain, which is what I normally seem to get.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
In the police force, going sick with stress is the general response to serious investigation. Followed by early retirement on the grounds of ill health. Followed by applying for a job with another force.
Woohoo, made it to Ukraine! That was fun, more than three hours at the border but we got through in the end, only for the coach wifi to fail to connect to the local network, so had to grab a local SIM when we stopped. Still a couple of hours to go, on a trip that’s so far been 41 hours since leaving home.
It turns out there was a big storm in the sandpit today, so pleased to have dodged that one!
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition.
For some rightwing Tory members of course Jacob is the Messiah as much as Jezza was ultimately for leftwing Labour members
I don't think the Tories are going in to opposition, but how does Jacob get on with Hatty in the Palace? Pater William was pro Rudolf Steiner lunacy and so is sister Annunziata, so ... who knows? JRM would be loved by the international media for sure, even more so than John Bercow. He needs to bring out a clothing item that can be worn half-ironically by supporters. Or have a photo taken supposedly without prior arrangement, showing him wearing a monocle.
Biden himself may sometimes sound like an old school Democrat with his talk of restoring “good union jobs” but he is widely seen as a feeble, confused old man with corruption scandals of his own which are growing more visible by the day. It is imperative now that he pull out of the next presidential race and allow his party to find a new candidate – one who may be a relative unknown on the national stage. The object of this game must be for party politics to recover its nerve and confront the demagoguery which is always ready to exploit hopelessness and rage.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I wanted to be Hari Seldon when I was a kid. Never worked out how to…
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Biden himself may sometimes sound like an old school Democrat with his talk of restoring “good union jobs” but he is widely seen as a feeble, confused old man with corruption scandals of his own which are growing more visible by the day…
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I'd prefer Iain Banks films. I look at the sheer tightness and wit and ingenuity of The Bridge/Feersum Endjinn/Walking On Glass and the self-indulgent over-writing of the Culture stuff and I despair, there's a clue in the length of the things. The low point is probably the Ship Minds trying to be funny in Excession, like PD's least talented comedians on a slow news day.
I find the Culture books slightly underwhelming. They're clearly more unique, introspective and creative than something like the Polity books, but I enjoy the latter quite a bit more most of the time.
Look to Windward I enjoyed. Excession, not so much.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
As I said mental health is real, but not all supposed cases of it are. That doesn't mean that all people off with it are faking, it means some are.
And the fact some seriously have an issue makes it easier for those who are workshy to fake it.
Not to mention that faking mental health is an easy thing to do if threatened with disciplinary action.
I had someone attempt this a few years ago when I had an employee I'd caught stealing. He was caught red handed on CCTV and I did a full by the book investigation. Sent him an invitation to a disciplinary meeting with a copy of all the evidence of his crime, and the morning of the scheduled meeting a relative of his brought a sick note in for "stress" saying he couldn't come to the meeting. Our lawyers said as I'd done everything by the book and had the CCTV etc I had enough to terminate his employment anyway despite him not attending the meeting, so he didn't get his planned six months of sick pay. But in the public sector Police etc who have done wrong often can take this path.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition.
For some rightwing Tory members of course Jacob is the Messiah as much as Jezza was ultimately for leftwing Labour members
I don't think the Tories are going in to opposition, but how does Jacob get on with Hatty in the Palace? Pater William was pro Rudolf Steiner lunacy and so is sister Annunziata, so ... who knows? JRM would be loved by the international media for sure, even more so than John Bercow. He needs to bring out a clothing item that can be worn half-ironically by supporters. Or have a photo taken supposedly without prior arrangement, showing him wearing a monocle.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
I just logged back in to linkedin to read of a planning officer in a local council being dragged through the civil courts explaining how he had to defend himself from accusations of fraud persued by an aggreived party because he allegedly made an informal assurance that a planning decision would be made at officer level and not referred to a committee (which he denies making).
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I'd prefer Iain Banks films. I look at the sheer tightness and wit and ingenuity of The Bridge/Feersum Endjinn/Walking On Glass and the self-indulgent over-writing of the Culture stuff and I despair, there's a clue in the length of the things. The low point is probably the Ship Minds trying to be funny in Excession, like PD's least talented comedians on a slow news day.
I find the Culture books slightly underwhelming. They're clearly more unique, introspective and creative than something like the Polity books, but I enjoy the latter quite a bit more most of the time.
Look to Windward I enjoyed. Excession, not so much.
The Culture books are great - though I guess they’re starting to date a bit. But the exploration of the futility of human endeavour in an age of hyper intelligent machines really hasn’t.
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Having tea with him is neither here nor there, because GE campaign will not be equivalent to all the electorate having tea with him. It'll be more of the same of his public persona which is vacuous, weak and charmless. Like Sunak.
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Once the contest boils down to Starmer vs. Sunak head to head, Starmer wins. Not by being good, but by being better than his opponent. Partly because people with the sense not to pay day-to-day attention haven't clocked quite how bad Sunak is at politics. The nanosecond after being criticised, he goes whiny. The public aren't going to like that.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
In the meantime car insurance is sky rocketing.
Not really the government's fault, though.
Car insurance is high because of the number of collisions and injuries caused by drivers.
Trump has posted to Truth Social saying “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” (Capitalisation in the original.)
Prosecutors believe there's a risk this threat could have a chilling effect on witnesses (no sh*t!), and they're seeking an order to limit what advance evidence supplied to the defence team the defence can release publicly. That seems quite a mild response. Indeed would it even stop Trump from repeatedly posting the same message as often as he likes?
Hopefully Trump will be made to appear before the judge to explain himself. Hopefully too the judge will exercise some leadership and not just let the prosecution make the case.
Or...has an Ezra Pound solution appeared on the horizon?
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Once the contest boils down to Starmer vs. Sunak head to head, Starmer wins. Not by being good, but by being better than his opponent. Partly because people with the sense not to pay day-to-day attention haven't clocked quite how bad Sunak is at politics. The nanosecond after being criticised, he goes whiny. The public aren't going to like that.
Yes this is all very true.
Same friend, despite being a tory, thinks Sunak is awful. She really dislikes him and some of those around him.
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Having tea with him is neither here nor there, because GE campaign will not be equivalent to all the electorate having tea with him. It'll be more of the same of his public persona which is vacuous, weak and charmless. Like Sunak.
Not so sure you're right about this.
Personality and charisma in a one-to-one (there were four of them) often translates to personality amongst larger numbers and on television too.
I think Starmer's real problem is lack of exposure which, obviously, will change.
Like Stuart below, whilst I don't think Starmer is ever going to set the world alight, he is likely to win hands down against Sunak.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
In the meantime car insurance is sky rocketing.
Not really the government's fault, though.
Car insurance is high because of the number of collisions and injuries caused by drivers.
And because it's run by a cartel.
Besides, the net expected payoff is always negative. Insurance is mostly a scam and they love stories about flood damage, wind damage, any kind of damage you've got, with big pictures on the front pages. I never insure anything except when legally obliged.
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Once the contest boils down to Starmer vs. Sunak head to head, Starmer wins. Not by being good, but by being better than his opponent. Partly because people with the sense not to pay day-to-day attention haven't clocked quite how bad Sunak is at politics. The nanosecond after being criticised, he goes whiny. The public aren't going to like that.
Once the contest boils down to Starmer Vs Sunak, Starmer wins.
Not because Starmer is better than Sunak.
But because vacuous opposition leader who is not perceived as a threat beats vacuous Prime Minister who leads an unpopular government.
Trump has posted to Truth Social saying “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” (Capitalisation in the original.)
Prosecutors believe there's a risk this threat could have a chilling effect on witnesses (no sh*t!), and they're seeking an order to limit what advance evidence supplied to the defence team the defence can release publicly. That seems quite a mild response. Indeed would it even stop Trump from repeatedly posting the same message as often as he likes?
Hopefully Trump will be made to appear before the judge to explain himself. Hopefully too the judge will exercise some leadership and not just let the prosecution make the case.
Or...has an Ezra Pound solution appeared on the horizon?
If he "won" the 2020 election, he is NOT eligible to run for a "third" term in 2024.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
As I said mental health is real, but not all supposed cases of it are. That doesn't mean that all people off with it are faking, it means some are.
And the fact some seriously have an issue makes it easier for those who are workshy to fake it.
Not to mention that faking mental health is an easy thing to do if threatened with disciplinary action.
I had someone attempt this a few years ago when I had an employee I'd caught stealing. He was caught red handed on CCTV and I did a full by the book investigation. Sent him an invitation to a disciplinary meeting with a copy of all the evidence of his crime, and the morning of the scheduled meeting a relative of his brought a sick note in for "stress" saying he couldn't come to the meeting. Our lawyers said as I'd done everything by the book and had the CCTV etc I had enough to terminate his employment anyway despite him not attending the meeting, so he didn't get his planned six months of sick pay. But in the public sector Police etc who have done wrong often can take this path.
But isn't that just life? some people are dishonest and will keep coming up with excuses, if not stress it will be something else.
I took a few weeks off work with stress a couple of years ago. I tried to resign or offered to take it as 'unpaid special leave' but I was encouraged to stay and go on sick leave. I was beseiged with guilt about it at the time - telling myself that I was just skiving - but the reality is that I needed to take time off to be able to focus and get stuff done on my return. I think it is better that people have this opportunity than the past when they were just told to bluster their way through it. I know of very bad examples of people working through burnout and stress and ending up with severe psychological problems resulting in them permanently leaving the workplace.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
What's the expenditure meant to be a measure of? I spend a fortune on my teeth every year, and zero - in direct cash outlay - on my cardiovascular system and brain. What conclusions follow from that?
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
Freeze on fuel duty hasn't "cost" a single penny.
Fuel duty has generated tens of billions in taxation. Not one penny on tax has been spend on finding a "freeze"
What has cost money is the billions spent annually subsidising (not taxing) rail fares.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
Freeze on fuel duty hasn't "cost" a single penny.
Fuel duty has generated tens of billions in taxation. Not one penny on tax has been spend on finding a "freeze"
What has cost money is the billions spent annually subsidising (not taxing) rail fares.
Good to see you in Edinburgh btw! Hope you're enjoying it, despite the crowds.
SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
I think it’s quite possible Starmer pleasantly surprises people in an election campaign. Expectations are so low, largely because Starmer has done too little for fear of scaring the horses, that they may well warm to him.
Opposite risk for Sunak. I really don’t think voters have quite clocked how underwhelming he is yet,
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
Freeze on fuel duty hasn't "cost" a single penny.
Fuel duty has generated tens of billions in taxation. Not one penny on tax has been spend on finding a "freeze"
What has cost money is the billions spent annually subsidising (not taxing) rail fares.
Obviously the roads need to be managed, repaired, policed etc... it all has to be funded.
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Once the contest boils down to Starmer vs. Sunak head to head, Starmer wins. Not by being good, but by being better than his opponent. Partly because people with the sense not to pay day-to-day attention haven't clocked quite how bad Sunak is at politics. The nanosecond after being criticised, he goes whiny. The public aren't going to like that.
Once the contest boils down to Starmer Vs Sunak, Starmer wins.
Not because Starmer is better than Sunak.
But because vacuous opposition leader who is not perceived as a threat beats vacuous Prime Minister who leads an unpopular government.
Starmer is going to win by default.
Have to say that's at least a bit graceless.
If Starmer had done nothing but reclaim the Labour party back from Corbyn and co, he would have rendered the nation a considerable service. He may only have given them enough rope to hang themselves, but that's a job largely done.
The unacceptable bits of the 2019 Conservatives, the people only swallowable because the alternative was even worse... A lot of them are still hanging around.
Starmer will win by default, sure. And it's to the eternal shame of this generation of Conservatives that they have screwed up this badly. But there's more to Starmer than that, even if you don't like him.
Trump has posted to Truth Social saying “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” (Capitalisation in the original.)
Prosecutors believe there's a risk this threat could have a chilling effect on witnesses (no sh*t!), and they're seeking an order to limit what advance evidence supplied to the defence team the defence can release publicly. That seems quite a mild response. Indeed would it even stop Trump from repeatedly posting the same message as often as he likes?
Hopefully Trump will be made to appear before the judge to explain himself. Hopefully too the judge will exercise some leadership and not just let the prosecution make the case.
Or...has an Ezra Pound solution appeared on the horizon?
If he "won" the 2020 election, he is NOT eligible to run for a "third" term in 2024.
Yes. You know how that sounded really good in your head? Well...
SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.
Yes! Sorry for cerebral eructation. Macleod's is the one I am thinking of.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
Trump has posted to Truth Social saying “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” (Capitalisation in the original.)
Prosecutors believe there's a risk this threat could have a chilling effect on witnesses (no sh*t!), and they're seeking an order to limit what advance evidence supplied to the defence team the defence can release publicly. That seems quite a mild response. Indeed would it even stop Trump from repeatedly posting the same message as often as he likes?
Hopefully Trump will be made to appear before the judge to explain himself. Hopefully too the judge will exercise some leadership and not just let the prosecution make the case.
Or...has an Ezra Pound solution appeared on the horizon?
If he "won" the 2020 election, he is NOT eligible to run for a "third" term in 2024.
No, according to the 22nd amendment, he's not allowed to be elected three times, but there's nothing to stop him running as many times as he wants.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
You must hate hybrid and electrical cars taking away all that fuel duty income for the government to 'invest'.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
That's NI being used as a gateway, or rather restriction, rather than funding mechanism.
What we've had is politicians from Brown to Sunak pretending that a NI rise is funding the NHS or social care whilst funding general government expenditure or tax cuts elsewhere.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
But it's not really "insurance", is NI?
Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.
But we also asked whether you would support/oppose an LTN in a few specific locations including 'in the street I live on'. Conservative voters are narrowly opposed to LTNs in principle but a plurality wouldn't mind one on their own street
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Once the contest boils down to Starmer vs. Sunak head to head, Starmer wins. Not by being good, but by being better than his opponent. Partly because people with the sense not to pay day-to-day attention haven't clocked quite how bad Sunak is at politics. The nanosecond after being criticised, he goes whiny. The public aren't going to like that.
Once the contest boils down to Starmer Vs Sunak, Starmer wins.
Not because Starmer is better than Sunak.
But because vacuous opposition leader who is not perceived as a threat beats vacuous Prime Minister who leads an unpopular government.
Starmer is going to win by default.
Have to say that's at least a bit graceless.
If Starmer had done nothing but reclaim the Labour party back from Corbyn and co, he would have rendered the nation a considerable service. He may only have given them enough rope to hang themselves, but that's a job largely done.
The unacceptable bits of the 2019 Conservatives, the people only swallowable because the alternative was even worse... A lot of them are still hanging around.
Starmer will win by default, sure. And it's to the eternal shame of this generation of Conservatives that they have screwed up this badly. But there's more to Starmer than that, even if you don't like him.
It would have been interesting to see how Starmer would have developed Labour's policies and strategy if the Conservatives hadn't destroyed themselves with the parties and sleaze.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
You must hate hybrid and electrical cars taking away all that fuel duty income for the government to 'invest'.
No, it's an interesting question. A Pigou tax that has served it's purpose. I think it should be replaced by axle load levy to counter road wear and collisions, or charges for entering built up areas to tackle congestion.
Despite allegations of "anti-car zealot", I think cars will always be absolutely essential for at least 25% of the population, and for the time being a much larger proportion than that.
I think motoring should be significantly cheaper for rural and disabled people. It would help balance the economy. For those 80% of us who live in urban areas, and the 71% of all journeys which are under 5 miles, public transport, walking or cycling should be the obvious and default option.
But we also asked whether you would support/oppose an LTN in a few specific locations including 'in the street I live on'. Conservative voters are narrowly opposed to LTNs in principle but a plurality wouldn't mind one on their own street
Starmer now doing no better than Corbyn in 2017 but massive swing from Conservatives to RefUK since 2019 on that poll
But we also asked whether you would support/oppose an LTN in a few specific locations including 'in the street I live on'. Conservative voters are narrowly opposed to LTNs in principle but a plurality wouldn't mind one on their own street
Redbridge got rid of its trial LTNs in 2020 (one in Ilford North, one in Ilford South) after only a few weeks....
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
But it's not really "insurance", is NI?
Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.
Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find thYes, e last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
That's NI being used as a gateway, or rather restriction, rather than funding mechanism.
What we've had is politicians from Brown to Sunak pretending that a NI rise is funding the NHS or social care whilst funding general government expenditure or tax cuts elsewhere.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
In the police force, going sick with stress is the general response to serious investigation. Followed by early retirement on the grounds of ill health. Followed by applying for a job with another force.
Round here, being moved to Station Redacted is how you know a member of the police is at the very least 'in the bad books'.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
In the police force, going sick with stress is the general response to serious investigation. Followed by early retirement on the grounds of ill health. Followed by applying for a job with another force.
Not just police of course, though of particular concern with them. Why do doctors go along with obvious sham diagnoses?
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
You must hate hybrid and electrical cars taking away all that fuel duty income for the government to 'invest'.
No, it's an interesting question. A Pigou tax that has served it's purpose. I think it should be replaced by axle load, or charges for entering built up areas.
Despite allegations of "anti-car zealot", I think cars will always be absolutely essential for at least 25% of the population, and for the time being a much larger proportion than that.
I think motoring should significantly cheaper for rural and disabled people. It would help balance the economy. For those 80% of us who live in urban areas, and the 71% of all journeys which are under 5 miles, public transport, walking or cycling should be the obvious and default option.
Most of my journeys are under five miles but anything above a mile is vastly more quicker, flexible, convenient, comfortable, safer and cheaper than by an alternative means.
SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.
Really like all the authors being mentioned. Macleod and Hamilton especially. Alsovworthy of mention the space archaeology stuff by Jack Mcdevitt
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
I was having a chat this week with a relatively senior public sector worker. We were both frazzled but working through it. But both expressed deep sadness that we just *knew* how good we could make things with just a *little* more resource. As it is - running everything on fumes, pulling more late nights, burning out .... it's not great.
Her bit of the world in particular - roughly 10x the workload since 2010, and zero increase in staff or budget.
But we also asked whether you would support/oppose an LTN in a few specific locations including 'in the street I live on'. Conservative voters are narrowly opposed to LTNs in principle but a plurality wouldn't mind one on their own street
Tories not hit 30% in a poll for nearly a month. (this will be the kiss of death for that factoid).
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
In the police force, going sick with stress is the general response to serious investigation. Followed by early retirement on the grounds of ill health. Followed by applying for a job with another force.
Round here, being moved to Station Redacted is how you know a member of the police is at the very least 'in the bad books'.
Met Inspector: Well then, you're packed already. Nicholas, we're offering you a smashing position with a delightful cottage in a lovely little place that has I think has won Village of the Year...I don't know how many times. It'll be good for you.
SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.
Really like all the authors being mentioned. Macleod and Hamilton especially. Alsovworthy of mention the space archaeology stuff by Jack Mcdevitt
I love most of the Academy series. Deepsix, Chindi, The Long Sunset, very good. Felt reflective without being navel gazing.
Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Memory is out in paperback now, the first two (of Time, and of Ruin) were very good, especially Children of Time.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
But it's not really "insurance", is NI?
Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.
Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions
Absolutely and utterly wrong.
The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.
Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.
Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
You must hate hybrid and electrical cars taking away all that fuel duty income for the government to 'invest'.
No, it's an interesting question. A Pigou tax that has served it's purpose. I think it should be replaced by axle load, or charges for entering built up areas.
Despite allegations of "anti-car zealot", I think cars will always be absolutely essential for at least 25% of the population, and for the time being a much larger proportion than that.
I think motoring should significantly cheaper for rural and disabled people. It would help balance the economy. For those 80% of us who live in urban areas, and the 71% of all journeys which are under 5 miles, public transport, walking or cycling should be the obvious and default option.
Most of my journeys are under five miles but anything above a mile is vastly more quicker, flexible, convenient, comfortable, safer and cheaper than by an alternative means.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
You must hate hybrid and electrical cars taking away all that fuel duty income for the government to 'invest'.
No, it's an interesting question. A Pigou tax that has served it's purpose. I think it should be replaced by axle load levy to counter road wear and collisions, or charges for entering built up areas to tackle congestion.
Despite allegations of "anti-car zealot", I think cars will always be absolutely essential for at least 25% of the population, and for the time being a much larger proportion than that.
I think motoring should be significantly cheaper for rural and disabled people. It would help balance the economy. For those 80% of us who live in urban areas, and the 71% of all journeys which are under 5 miles, public transport, walking or cycling should be the obvious and default option.
The principle should be an easy one IMO. A road usage charge applies where there is viable public transport on that route. The charge subsidises the public transport option, such that that it is substantially cheaper than the car option.
I was looking up Jack McDevitt novels and apparently there's one called Eternity Road, where a post apocalyptic society 1700 years in the future are trying to find out information about the legendary 'Roadmakers', as the magnificent roads still covering the landscape are nearly all that is left of them (us).
Clearly not set in Britain, as I don't think our roads would last 4 years without maintenance, if local election leaflets are anything to go by.
Not a fan of Sir Beer Korma, but perhaps ULEZ and Opinium swingback?
I note you have ignored the polls released earlier with Labour still in the late teens and early 20s.
Starmer will lose the next election but by about sixty seats less than your boy Corbyn did and would, were he still leader. Voters no longer associate themselves with the centre, left of centre or barking mad Corbyn left. It's Tory right or barking mad Conservative now, take your pick.
I was looking up Jack McDevitt novels and apparently there's one called Eternity Road, where a post apocalyptic society 1700 years in the future are trying to find out information about the legendary 'Roadmakers', as the magnificent roads still covering the landscape are nearly all that is left of them (us).
Clearly not set in Britain, as I don't think our roads would last 4 years without maintenance, if local election leaflets are anything to go by.
There's something of that also, only for Roman roads, in the Bernard Cornwell novels set in Britain (etc) in the Dark Ages, er pardon me the post-Roman early Mediaeval period.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition
I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.
But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?
Cameron wasn't small-state.
Very few politicians are.
They only differ in what they want to spend money on and what they want to allow.
In a democracy, small-state only works if the average Joe is wealthy enough such that the state becomes an irritant rather than a necessity.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
That only works if its via private sector wealth creation.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
The trouble is we’re not very good at distinguishing between handouts that encourage economic growth, and handouts that discourage it.
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
Depends on how you put that extra money in the pockets of poor people.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
To an extent it does, NI contributions or credits are required to claim the state pension and you cannot get JSA allowance now without NI contributions otherwise if you don't have enough savings you have to claim UC.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
But it's not really "insurance", is NI?
Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.
Not if you can't claim it unless you have paid in for it, as you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions
Absolutely and utterly wrong.
The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.
Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.
Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.
For the simple reason that no parliament can compel another.
But we also asked whether you would support/oppose an LTN in a few specific locations including 'in the street I live on'. Conservative voters are narrowly opposed to LTNs in principle but a plurality wouldn't mind one on their own street
It goes without saying that we don't want other people driving down our street. We just want to retain the freedom to drive down their street.
But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.
Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.
Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters. Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.
Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.
Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.
And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.
What is interesting is for how long the government have been penalising motorists without any political comeback. This ULEZ episode feels like one of those moments where the government (and the opposition) pretend to take notice of people's concerns before going going back to business as usual.
Penalising motorists?! Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 (i.e. a real terms cut) and was actually reduced by 5p per litre last year. In the same period rail fares have risen by 50%. The Government is spending billions on the A303 and the A428 and a bunch of other roads. Wish they’d start penalising the rest of us like that.
Typical ungrateful attitude.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
HS2 cost (phase 1 and 2a): £50 billion
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
You must hate hybrid and electrical cars taking away all that fuel duty income for the government to 'invest'.
No, it's an interesting question. A Pigou tax that has served it's purpose. I think it should be replaced by axle load levy to counter road wear and collisions, or charges for entering built up areas to tackle congestion.
Despite allegations of "anti-car zealot", I think cars will always be absolutely essential for at least 25% of the population, and for the time being a much larger proportion than that.
I think motoring should be significantly cheaper for rural and disabled people. It would help balance the economy. For those 80% of us who live in urban areas, and the 71% of all journeys which are under 5 miles, public transport, walking or cycling should be the obvious and default option.
The principle should be an easy one IMO. A road usage charge applies where there is viable public transport on that route. The charge subsidises the public transport option, such that that it is substantially cheaper than the car option.
Or it should be based on the location of the registered keeper (or similar). We already collect data on accessibility to services with measures like SIMD, for example.
But we also asked whether you would support/oppose an LTN in a few specific locations including 'in the street I live on'. Conservative voters are narrowly opposed to LTNs in principle but a plurality wouldn't mind one on their own street
It goes without saying that we don't want other people driving down our street. We just want to retain the freedom to drive down their street.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
The reality is that due to austerity a large part of public sector employment has become intolerable. If you keep telling people they need to do more with less they end up having a breakdown. This isn't people being 'workshy'. This type of misguided thinking has led to the problem where agency staff are being paid twice and sometimes three times more than permanent staff to do the same job, one which they (the agency staff) often perform with disinterest and indifference, clocking up the hours, topping up the SIPP by another X thousand pounds a week, and switching to a different contract/employer upon the first murmur of trouble.
In the police force, going sick with stress is the general response to serious investigation. Followed by early retirement on the grounds of ill health. Followed by applying for a job with another force.
Round here, being moved to Station Redacted is how you know a member of the police is at the very least 'in the bad books'.
Met Inspector: Well then, you're packed already. Nicholas, we're offering you a smashing position with a delightful cottage in a lovely little place that has I think has won Village of the Year...I don't know how many times. It'll be good for you.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.
It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?
You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.
I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.
There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.
I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.
Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".
To which the clear answer is yes. But most especially people in employment (as opposed to those on benefits) who can opt out of work with stress, or other mental health conditions while still claiming a paycheck. So two people are paid for the same job.
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.
Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.
I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now
If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?
They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing
Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.
The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.
I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?
I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.
Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.
Robots? R. Doug Seal?
No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).
I was trying to make a funny
The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.
It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.
Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.
What I really want, thouigh, are Iain M. Banks films - or perhaps also Peter Hamilton ones, esp. the Night Sessions (if only to see a future Edinburgh).
I'd prefer Iain Banks films. I look at the sheer tightness and wit and ingenuity of The Bridge/Feersum Endjinn/Walking On Glass and the self-indulgent over-writing of the Culture stuff and I despair, there's a clue in the length of the things. The low point is probably the Ship Minds trying to be funny in Excession, like PD's least talented comedians on a slow news day.
There was a movie of Complicity and a TV series of Crow Road.
I thought the TV series of Crow Road was very good and probably worth a re-watch.
Not so convinced by Complicity (though I didn't think the book was that great either).
I believe there was also a radio series of Espedair Street. Music "by" Iain Banks, so possibly a bit self-indulgent.
Was chatting to a tory friend earlier. She has voted tory all her life but will not do so next time.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
How convenient you have such a malleable Tory friend.
SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.
Really like all the authors being mentioned. Macleod and Hamilton especially. Alsovworthy of mention the space archaeology stuff by Jack Mcdevitt
I didn't know anybody else had read the McDevitt stuff. I liked his Priscilla Hutchins/Academy series, although the publishers never bothered to give the books a consistent size/design, so they look weird on the shelf. Half of the ones I had were US mass-market paperbacks with the yellow edges from Ace, some were British from Voyager, then other bits and bobs. My urge to completism did not kick in for the Alex Benedict series, so I have two or three and the others I got from the library
Comments
Especially but not exhaustively true in public sector employment.
Which is not to say that stress and other mental health conditions aren't real, they are, but they're also quite easy to fake for those who are workshy.
So, the best way to achieve it is first to raise everyone's income and level of prosperity.
I am not holding my breath on the Tories doing anything about the in work workshy. They never do. They just ramp things up harder and harder on those on eg disability benefits, who are NOT the problem.
And that's hard, very hard.
Its far easier for people to vote themselves another handout.
And politicians encourage them to do so.
ETA I see Feersum Endjinn is actually billed as Iain M, but it doesn't feel like it
Putting more money in the pockets of poor people means they spend more in the economy, either as consumers or entrepreneurs, and advances the
opportunities for growth. So does spending money on infrastructure, health and education so long as it’s efficiently deployed.
Spending money on people who will just save it, or on unproductive activities that could and should be more efficient and automated if not run by government, and on white elephants, is value destroying.
But we tend to lump both into the same ideological category.
At any rate, I'd rather be here in 17 degrees and changeable than in Europe and baking.
And I'd certainly rather be here than in Europe in the rain, which is what I normally seem to get.
It turns out there was a big storm in the sandpit today, so pleased to have dodged that one!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/05/americas-fate-hinges-on-feeble-joe-biden-being-pushed-power/
Yes.
Never worked out how to…
Largely bollocks.
However, she wanted to know what Starmer stands for before voting for him. Says she knows nothing about his policies. Otherwise it will be LibDems.
It's easy to confuse the two halves of this post. The fact that Starmer doesn't ignite much enthusiasm at the moment does NOT mean the Conservatives have a prayer.
(And the GE campaign will expose Starmer and his views. I know someone who had tea with him and she said he was lovely, funny, and personable.)
Look to Windward I enjoyed. Excession, not so much.
And the fact some seriously have an issue makes it easier for those who are workshy to fake it.
Not to mention that faking mental health is an easy thing to do if threatened with disciplinary action.
I had someone attempt this a few years ago when I had an employee I'd caught stealing. He was caught red handed on CCTV and I did a full by the book investigation. Sent him an invitation to a disciplinary meeting with a copy of all the evidence of his crime, and the morning of the scheduled meeting a relative of his brought a sick note in for "stress" saying he couldn't come to the meeting. Our lawyers said as I'd done everything by the book and had the CCTV etc I had enough to terminate his employment anyway despite him not attending the meeting, so he didn't get his planned six months of sick pay. But in the public sector Police etc who have done wrong often can take this path.
But the exploration of the futility of human endeavour in an age of hyper intelligent machines really hasn’t.
Fuel duty is a tax on fuel. Train fares are subsidised not taxed.
90% of transportation miles is on roads, yet the Government is spending billions on roads as you said but hundreds of billions on rail infrastructure with the likes of HS2 and crossrail.
Yes I wish we'd be penalised like subsidised rail travellers. 🤦♂️
Prosecutors believe there's a risk this threat could have a chilling effect on witnesses (no sh*t!), and they're seeking an order to limit what advance evidence supplied to the defence team the defence can release publicly. That seems quite a mild response. Indeed would it even stop Trump from repeatedly posting the same message as often as he likes?
Hopefully Trump will be made to appear before the judge to explain himself. Hopefully too the judge will exercise some leadership and not just let the prosecution make the case.
Or...has an Ezra Pound solution appeared on the horizon?
Same friend, despite being a tory, thinks Sunak is awful. She really dislikes him and some of those around him.
Personality and charisma in a one-to-one (there were four of them) often translates to personality amongst larger numbers and on television too.
I think Starmer's real problem is lack of exposure which, obviously, will change.
Like Stuart below, whilst I don't think Starmer is ever going to set the world alight, he is likely to win hands down against Sunak.
Besides, the net expected payoff is always negative. Insurance is mostly a scam and they love stories about flood damage, wind damage, any kind of damage you've got, with big pictures on the front pages. I never insure anything except when legally obliged.
Not because Starmer is better than Sunak.
But because vacuous opposition leader who is not perceived as a threat beats vacuous Prime Minister who leads an unpopular government.
Starmer is going to win by default.
Freeze on fuel duty cost (so far): £80 billion
We need to invest to grow.
I took a few weeks off work with stress a couple of years ago. I tried to resign or offered to take it as 'unpaid special leave' but I was encouraged to stay and go on sick leave. I was beseiged with guilt about it at the time - telling myself that I was just skiving - but the reality is that I needed to take time off to be able to focus and get stuff done on my return. I think it is better that people have this opportunity than the past when they were just told to bluster their way through it. I know of very bad examples of people working through burnout and stress and ending up with severe psychological problems resulting in them permanently leaving the workplace.
Fuel duty has generated tens of billions in taxation. Not one penny on tax has been spend on finding a "freeze"
What has cost money is the billions spent annually subsidising (not taxing) rail fares.
https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/status/1687785577754537984?t=xdYiN-wkZuCyawa90KSg9Q&s=19
SF novels set in a near-future independent Scotland were quite popular a few years back: Macleod did at least two, and so did Stross. They got overtaken by events, but I enjoyed all of them, being spy- or detective- fiction in a recognisable SF setting: 'orrible Scottish murr-ders and space elevators.
Opposite risk for Sunak. I really don’t think voters have quite clocked how underwhelming he is yet,
If Starmer had done nothing but reclaim the Labour party back from Corbyn and co, he would have rendered the nation a considerable service. He may only have given them enough rope to hang themselves, but that's a job largely done.
The unacceptable bits of the 2019 Conservatives, the people only swallowable because the alternative was even worse... A lot of them are still hanging around.
Starmer will win by default, sure. And it's to the eternal shame of this generation of Conservatives that they have screwed up this badly. But there's more to Starmer than that, even if you don't like him.
Higher welfare payments wont help the economy but lower employment taxes on the low paid will.
If Starmer is looking for a progressive idea then cutting NI on the low paid would be a good idea.
It would have the additional advantage of busting the lie that national insurance funds the NHS, pensions and welfare state.
Indeed in most western nations most unemployment benefits, pensions and indeed healthcare too are funded by insurance
Sir Kid Starver fans please explain
LAB: 40% (-2)
CON: 26% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
REF: 10% (-)
GRN: 7% (-)
via @OpiniumResearch, 02 - 04 Aug
What we've had is politicians from Brown to Sunak pretending that a NI rise is funding the NHS or social care whilst funding general government expenditure or tax cuts elsewhere.
Money is money even if you call it UC rather than JSA or pension benefit rather than State Pension.
Labour lead by 14 in this week's Opinium / @ObserverUK poll
Labour 40% (-2)
Conservatives 26% (+1)
Lib Dems 10% (-1)
Reform UK 10% (n/c)
Greens 7% (+1)
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192
But we also asked whether you would support/oppose an LTN in a few specific locations including 'in the street I live on'. Conservative voters are narrowly opposed to LTNs in principle but a plurality wouldn't mind one on their own street
Despite allegations of "anti-car zealot", I think cars will always be absolutely essential for at least 25% of the population, and for the time being a much larger proportion than that.
I think motoring should be significantly cheaper for rural and disabled people. It would help balance the economy. For those 80% of us who live in urban areas, and the 71% of all journeys which are under 5 miles, public transport, walking or cycling should be the obvious and default option.
At least his red Tory Kid Starving fans still love him
Her bit of the world in particular - roughly 10x the workload since 2010, and zero increase in staff or budget.
Profit!... in some way.
(this will be the kiss of death for that factoid).
Met Inspector: Well then, you're packed already. Nicholas, we're offering you a smashing position with a delightful cottage in a lovely little place that has I think has won Village of the Year...I don't know how many times. It'll be good for you.
Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Memory is out in paperback now, the first two (of Time, and of Ruin) were very good, especially Children of Time.
The fuinding doesn't correspond to the cost. Unlike a true insurance system.
Edit: as has already been pointed out tonight, it is mertely a gatekeeper. The true cost of the benefits is irrelevant under such a system, in a way that an insyrance system isn't.
Come now - you've just admitted that NI isn't ringfenced. That is completely inconsistent with your argument.
Clearly not set in Britain, as I don't think our roads would last 4 years without maintenance, if local election leaflets are anything to go by.
I note you have ignored the polls released earlier with Labour still in the late teens and early 20s.
Starmer will lose the next election but by about sixty seats less than your boy Corbyn did and would, were he still leader. Voters no longer associate themselves with the centre, left of centre or barking mad Corbyn left. It's Tory right or barking mad Conservative now, take your pick.
Tory majority back at 9/1. Take a punt.
Con 26%
LD 10%
ReformUK 10%
Greens 7%
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/05/investigation-after-57-world-triathlon-championship-swimmers-fall-sick-and-get-diarrhoea-in-sunderland-race
Not so convinced by Complicity (though I didn't think the book was that great either).
I believe there was also a radio series of Espedair Street. Music "by" Iain Banks, so possibly a bit self-indulgent.