Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Two decades of Ipsos polling – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    Some of us were saying before the leadership election last year that it was no more than an aura.
  • kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.

    With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.

    Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.

    Asylum as a 'right' is the root cause of so many of the problems. Until that's revised then it's difficult to see anything changing.
    Asylum as a right was created after WW2 in response to the holocaust and the failure of the world to protect the Jews against genocide. By all means advocate for that right to be taken away if you want to, but don't pretend it's not there for a reason.
    It offers a false sense of security and gives us a false sense of altruism. It might have been created with good intentions but it's not sustainable in a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel.
    'Us' being?
    In this case citizens of the UK.
  • Perhaps he should have announced phasing out

    boulay said:

    Stocky said:

    How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?

    So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?

    Utter incompetence.

    Firstly, he's not saying ICE cars will be available for sale after 2030 he's saying that consumers will not be stopped by the state from buying one assuming they are there. Secondly, this alters demand and may make manufacturers produce ICE cars for longer - up to them.
    Quite. Really rather bizarre that an avowed libertarian needs a gentle explanation of the free market but hey.
    I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.

    Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.

    So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.

    They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
    So Ford are geared up to only be selling new electric vehicles in the UK from 2030. If they are the only Fords available then the people who only will drive Fords will buy the electric ones, as they would if this policy wasn’t pushed back. Same for any carmaker who makes right hand drive models - if they choose to stick to the 2030 timetable which they have all geared towards then the market brings in the 2030 timetable anyway. Which car maker thinks it’s worth switching their plans for all electric anyway at this stage?

    If a car co suddenly thinks, hang on a minute, there’s a big market for five years to build ICE cars then they will, but they won’t.

    This policy will make fuck all difference and is merely cynical politics which might work but as Sunak is crap at politics it obviously won’t, unless it does.
    You seem to be assuming that people go out to buy a Ford rather than going out to buy a car.

    So Ford's assumption based on the policy was that someone buying a new car past 2030 in the UK literally couldn't get a new ICE so, obviously, they'd not supply them - and, crucially, nor would any of their competitors.

    But now, that isn't clear. So there will actually be a market for new ICE cars in 2030-35 (if the new policy survives), and Ford not offering an ICE option while Honda (say) do is bad news for Ford. Therefore Ford, and indeed Honda, will have to re-plan to ensure ICE models are available (and fewer EVs) because otherwise a competitor will gain a jump on them.

    I think you're wrong to believe car companies won't re-plan. They are in a difficult position because they might reason that actually Labour will get in and stick with 2030 - but that's a gamble as they might not be and it's two elections away. But in any event, yesterday they were sure it was 2030, now they aren't, and risk has a cost.

    And that's all apart from the separate point that the change more generally signals policy is inconsistent and even capricious in the UK. What other policy commitments aren't really policy commitments? How do you make investment decisions? It just injects risk into the system, and you might well shy away from investments.
    If electric cars are better and/or cheaper than ICE by 2030 then why would anyone buy an ICE car?

    All the manufacturers have to do is make sure they are and there won't be a problem.

    If the manufacturers worry that, actually, we aren't really sure that we'll cross that threshold by 2030, then isn't the government also right to be worried that it will be imposing costs in order to meet an arbitrary deadline?
    That's an argument for having no deadline at all (which actually Sunak isn't proposing - and I'm not sure any major politician is proposing).

    The trouble with doing that is that a load of investment that would have gone into ensuring EVs are an attractive proposition to consumers in 2030 go into ensuring you continue to have an ICE offering for those consumers who, for whatever reason (whether that is cost/quality or simply because they've been driving an ICE vehicle for 40 years) opt for that option.

    You've rather simplified the position by assuming that either everyone will want an EV or everyone will want an ICE because one will be superior and cheaper compared to the other, so just make sure it's EV and job's a good'un. There are areas where a technology does indeed wither and die very rapidly on that basis. But actually things often coexist for long periods - indeed makes and models of car do as Hondas and Fords have pros and cons for different people.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,652

    Perhaps he should have announced phasing out

    boulay said:

    Stocky said:

    How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?

    So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?

    Utter incompetence.

    Firstly, he's not saying ICE cars will be available for sale after 2030 he's saying that consumers will not be stopped by the state from buying one assuming they are there. Secondly, this alters demand and may make manufacturers produce ICE cars for longer - up to them.
    Quite. Really rather bizarre that an avowed libertarian needs a gentle explanation of the free market but hey.
    I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.

    Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.

    So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.

    They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
    So Ford are geared up to only be selling new electric vehicles in the UK from 2030. If they are the only Fords available then the people who only will drive Fords will buy the electric ones, as they would if this policy wasn’t pushed back. Same for any carmaker who makes right hand drive models - if they choose to stick to the 2030 timetable which they have all geared towards then the market brings in the 2030 timetable anyway. Which car maker thinks it’s worth switching their plans for all electric anyway at this stage?

    If a car co suddenly thinks, hang on a minute, there’s a big market for five years to build ICE cars then they will, but they won’t.

    This policy will make fuck all difference and is merely cynical politics which might work but as Sunak is crap at politics it obviously won’t, unless it does.
    You seem to be assuming that people go out to buy a Ford rather than going out to buy a car.

    So Ford's assumption based on the policy was that someone buying a new car past 2030 in the UK literally couldn't get a new ICE so, obviously, they'd not supply them - and, crucially, nor would any of their competitors.

    But now, that isn't clear. So there will actually be a market for new ICE cars in 2030-35 (if the new policy survives), and Ford not offering an ICE option while Honda (say) do is bad news for Ford. Therefore Ford, and indeed Honda, will have to re-plan to ensure ICE models are available (and fewer EVs) because otherwise a competitor will gain a jump on them.

    I think you're wrong to believe car companies won't re-plan. They are in a difficult position because they might reason that actually Labour will get in and stick with 2030 - but that's a gamble as they might not be and it's two elections away. But in any event, yesterday they were sure it was 2030, now they aren't, and risk has a cost.

    And that's all apart from the separate point that the change more generally signals policy is inconsistent and even capricious in the UK. What other policy commitments aren't really policy commitments? How do you make investment decisions? It just injects risk into the system, and you might well shy away from investments.
    If electric cars are better and/or cheaper than ICE by 2030 then why would anyone buy an ICE car?

    All the manufacturers have to do is make sure they are and there won't be a problem.

    If the manufacturers worry that, actually, we aren't really sure that we'll cross that threshold by 2030, then isn't the government also right to be worried that it will be imposing costs in order to meet an arbitrary deadline?
    Shouldn't the government also be worried about fuel duty imposing costs to meet an arbitrary reduction of energy use? Time to burn, baby, burn, and watch the libs' tears?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,792
    Penddu2 said:

    Namibia bet looks good - as does South Africa
    I dont think England will run in that many - bookies odd usually flatter England (in any sport)
    Australia Wales is difficult to predict. I originally predicted an Australian win, but having watched both Fiji games again I am going with Wales by 6. But it is your money. Go for it.

    Yes, I take the 'bookies odds flatter England' argument - I'm slightly hoping that England punter sentiment has swung too far the other way after the Japan match!
    A good England side should be well over 50 points better than Chile. This isn't a good England side. But it isn't as bad an England side as we are telling each other. It is a side with a lot of talent that is misfiring terribly but may at some point stop doing so.

    I would love to see Wales beat Australia. Neither side is at its usual standard, but I think Australia more likely to pull itself together. But you really never know with Wales. They never know when they're beaten.
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,457
    Cyclefree said:

    @Jim_Miller asked for my views on what appropriate compensation should be and what action I would take against those responsible.

    Those responsible first.

    Fujitsu

    - No government contracts for Fujitsu until they have paid ample compensation. I am talking about millions of ounces worth of compensation not some token amount. No money, no work.

    - All senior Fujitsu personnel responsible for the Horizon project during the relevant time to be barred from any government posts.

    - Fujitsu witnesses during the trials and subsequent legal cases and the inquiry to be investigated with a view to determining whether there is a basis for bring charges of perjury / conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    - The Policing Minister and the London Mayor to meet with the head of the Met to ask for a detailed account of what steps the Met have taken to investigate the 2 Fujitsu employees referred to the Met by the DPP in 2020, who has been put in charge of this etc. If nothing has been done, the Met needs to be told to do its job and that while the investigation must be done properly so as not to prejudice a fair trial should charges be laid, those to whom the Met is responsible expect regular updates to ensure that this is being done properly, expeditiously and with the proper legal and other expertise supporting it. There must be no question of it being put in the "Too Difficult, Let's Forget About It" box.

    The Post Office

    - The CEO's and Board members in charge during this scandal to have all public honours revoked, to be removed from any positions in government bodies or quangos and to be told in very clear terms to reflect on whether they should in positions of responsibility anywhere else, given what they presided over. If they wail that they did not know, tell them that being in charge is making sure that they do know and that such an excuse runs out at about the age of 5.
    - If there is evidence to disqualify them from being directors, that step should be taken.
    - If it is possible to claw back bonuses paid, that too should be done.
    - If there is evidence of perjury/conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, they too should be investigated and where appropriate charged.
    - The current Board should be told that there will be no bonuses for any of them or senior executives until the inquiry has finished, reported and all those subpostmasters affected have been compensated.
    - The Post Office should be ordered to stop opposing appeals against conviction.
    - The government needs to take steps to overturn the convictions of those who pleaded guilty on the basis of Horizon evidence. None of the prosecutions based on this system must be allowed to stand.

    .... to be continued....

    Are Fujitsu even a significant player in the UK any more?

    I know they do a bit of SAP and ServiceNow integration, and I'm sure there must still be some legacy support contracts left over from the ICL days. But are they actually winning any new business? I work in tech consultancy, and never come across them at any point in the last decade.

    I imagine it'll be tricky to go after a company that's all but withdrawn from this country already. What leverage would there be to stop them from simply closing up shop altogether?
  • This!


    avi Gurumurthy
    @RGurumurthy
    ·
    1h
    Pretending things are a bigger deal than they are: on boilers, the old policy was a 2035 phase out date; the new policy is the same but with an exemption for 20%. On EVs, whatever the policy, I doubt they’ll be selling small, ICE vehicles at a lower price than EVs in the 2030s.

    https://twitter.com/RGurumurthy/status/1704545953749901822
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Penddu2 said:

    Leon said:

    For all the talk of “this World Cup is crap” - naming no names but looking at you @Farooq - it turns out this crap World Cup is generating exceptional TV viewing figures

    3.5m in GERMANY watched the opening game: France v NZ. I also read that 20 MILLION+ Japanese watched the England Japan game

    These are phenomenal figures for a global minority sport. But also understandable, with all its blood and thunder, high quality international rugby is compelling viewing

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/20/rugby-world-cup-organisers-delighted-with-spectacular-tv-viewing-figures

    Rugby Union can become a massive sport if it plays this cleverly. Possibly even 3rd in the world after cricket - they are all behind football

    the RWC is already the third biggest sporting event after Footbal WC and Olympics. Crickets figures are inflated by the sockless masses...
    On what metric?

    American sports are highly parochial and don’t export well, nonetheless America by itself is huge and baseball is big in Japan and Cuba etc and NFL is popular in Canada

    It would be interesting to compare the superbowl or the World Series to the rugby World Cup

    And I am fairly certain the cricket ODI and T20 world cups are bigger than any of them due to the HUGE south Asian audiences
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,310
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Jim_Miller asked for my views on what appropriate compensation should be and what action I would take against those responsible.

    Those responsible first.

    Fujitsu

    - No government contracts for Fujitsu until they have paid ample compensation. I am talking about millions of ounces worth of compensation not some token amount. No money, no work.

    - All senior Fujitsu personnel responsible for the Horizon project during the relevant time to be barred from any government posts.

    - Fujitsu witnesses during the trials and subsequent legal cases and the inquiry to be investigated with a view to determining whether there is a basis for bring charges of perjury / conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    - The Policing Minister and the London Mayor to meet with the head of the Met to ask for a detailed account of what steps the Met have taken to investigate the 2 Fujitsu employees referred to the Met by the DPP in 2020, who has been put in charge of this etc. If nothing has been done, the Met needs to be told to do its job and that while the investigation must be done properly so as not to prejudice a fair trial should charges be laid, those to whom the Met is responsible expect regular updates to ensure that this is being done properly, expeditiously and with the proper legal and other expertise supporting it. There must be no question of it being put in the "Too Difficult, Let's Forget About It" box.

    The Post Office

    - The CEO's and Board members in charge during this scandal to have all public honours revoked, to be removed from any positions in government bodies or quangos and to be told in very clear terms to reflect on whether they should in positions of responsibility anywhere else, given what they presided over. If they wail that they did not know, tell them that being in charge is making sure that they do know and that such an excuse runs out at about the age of 5.
    - If there is evidence to disqualify them from being directors, that step should be taken.
    - If it is possible to claw back bonuses paid, that too should be done.
    - If there is evidence of perjury/conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, they too should be investigated and where appropriate charged.
    - The current Board should be told that there will be no bonuses for any of them or senior executives until the inquiry has finished, reported and all those subpostmasters affected have been compensated.
    - The Post Office should be ordered to stop opposing appeals against conviction.
    - The government needs to take steps to overturn the convictions of those who pleaded guilty on the basis of Horizon evidence. None of the prosecutions based on this system must be allowed to stand.

    .... to be continued....

    - The government needs to appoint one or two independent directors whose sole responsibility is to ensure full compliance with the judge's inquiry - together with its own separate staff to ensure no backsliding by its staff. If this means having a new GC and internal / external lawyers untainted by what has happened so far, so be it. There need to be regular reports to the Business Department on progress.

    Other professionals

    - Those lawyers / law firms / consultants etc involved in this need to face the same civil and criminal consequences as Fujitsu and Post Office staff.
    - If there is insufficient evidence for criminal charges, they should be referred to their professional bodies.
    - The big law firms involved in advising the Post Office should be "invited" to contribute to a compensation fund, especially if they want to be put on the panel for future government work.

    Awards - Nick Wallis, the journalists at Computer Weekly and some of those who blew the whistle and tried to do the right thing should be nominated for honours.

    Once the inquiry is over, there should be a task force headed by someone tough and determined, to implement the recommendations within the Post Office eg a proper internal investigation team, whistleblowing programme etc. When they have finished with that, the template can be used in the many other organisations needing this.

    .... More to come ....
    Finally compensation

    There are various heads:-

    1. Conviction / imprisonment / loss of reputation
    2. Pain & suffering: one woman was imprisoned while pregnant, others committed suicide etc. Money cannot compensate for this but there should still be a sum to reflect the awfulness of what happened.
    3. Loss of earnings from their business.
    4. Repayment of sums paid by the subpostmasters to the Post Office to make the books add up.
    5. Legal and other fees
    6. Bankruptcy costs / loss of homes / businesses / pension contributions etc.

    1 & 2 should be fixed sums.
    4 - those figures will be known; ditto 3 & 5
    No 6 is the big one and may need to be on a sliding scale from the bare minimum to those who suffered a very big loss.

    The total sum needs to be enough to put the victims in something approximating the position they would have been in had they not been prosecuted + a sum to reflect the pain + repayment of costs + an uplift to reflect the truly scandalous nature of what has happened and it must be net of tax so that there are no further calls on the money.

    You can go through the courts to get this quantified but this takes time so the sum might be discounted by a small amount to reflect payment now but given how long most have been waiting I think this should be minor.

    The government has - reportedly - put aside £1 billion. Divided by 600 that is ca. £1.6 million. So the offer this week, frankly, should be doubled.

    Does this answer your question?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,424

    My wife has just come back from her WI meeting, where there was a report on a persistent problem over a ‘required’ zebra crossing. The authorities have said that as there hasn’t been a fatality at the point there’s no need for a crossing. I should say it’s to get from part of the town to the only local supermarket.
    I offered to put a post on our Facebook asking for a sacrificial volunteer but was told firmly not to!

    Just shove a pensioner in front of a car. According to PB they are all selfish parasite ballast existences depleting the vitality of ze MASTER! RACE! and our PRECIOUS! VITAL! ESSENCE!

    {no signal}

    FLASH FLASH
    SET ALL CRM-114 to "OPE". REPEAT. SET ALL CRM-114 TO "OPE".
    INITIATE PLAN R FOR RIPPER
    ENDS
    Be a serious problem for the WI, the vast majority being pensioners.
  • Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,792
    Leon said:

    For all the talk of “this World Cup is crap” - naming no names but looking at you @Farooq - it turns out this crap World Cup is generating exceptional TV viewing figures

    3.5m in GERMANY watched the opening game: France v NZ. I also read that 20 MILLION+ Japanese watched the England Japan game

    These are phenomenal figures for a global minority sport. But also understandable, with all its blood and thunder, high quality international rugby is compelling viewing

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/20/rugby-world-cup-organisers-delighted-with-spectacular-tv-viewing-figures

    Rugby Union can become a massive sport if it plays this cleverly. Possibly even 3rd in the world after cricket - they are all behind football

    Pleased the Germams are getting into it. I'd love to see a few more Europeans taking the game seriously.

    But what talk of crapness? It's been brilliant! I have loved every game I've seen. My only small complaint is that it's not on every night - though I think the decision not to force the small countrues to play twice in four days like they used to is the right one.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    It’s so obviously not just political but electoral which just increases the sense of flailing.

    There’s a group of Tories today who really think they’ve created a bear trap for Labour in a stroke of genius by Sunak. They’re the same people who were convinced the same when they were banging on about the anti-growth alliance during the Autumn Truss premiership.
  • We face a bleak future. Physical places. People. Gathering. Belonging. Social.

    Eating sandwiches alone...

    BBC East Midlands
    @bbcemt
    ·
    1h
    "I could sob my socks off." 💔

    Gladys, 98, used to eat her sandwiches in her local Wilko shop, which has now closed.

    Read more: https://bbc.in/48hf57T

    https://twitter.com/bbcemt/status/1704546462326210568
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 689
    Leon said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Leon said:

    For all the talk of “this World Cup is crap” - naming no names but looking at you @Farooq - it turns out this crap World Cup is generating exceptional TV viewing figures

    3.5m in GERMANY watched the opening game: France v NZ. I also read that 20 MILLION+ Japanese watched the England Japan game

    These are phenomenal figures for a global minority sport. But also understandable, with all its blood and thunder, high quality international rugby is compelling viewing

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/20/rugby-world-cup-organisers-delighted-with-spectacular-tv-viewing-figures

    Rugby Union can become a massive sport if it plays this cleverly. Possibly even 3rd in the world after cricket - they are all behind football

    the RWC is already the third biggest sporting event after Footbal WC and Olympics. Crickets figures are inflated by the sockless masses...
    On what metric?

    American sports are highly parochial and don’t export well, nonetheless America by itself is huge and baseball is big in Japan and Cuba etc and NFL is popular in Canada

    It would be interesting to compare the superbowl or the World Series to the rugby World Cup

    And I am fairly certain the cricket ODI and T20 world cups are bigger than any of them due to the HUGE south Asian audiences
    I am not sure what the statistic relates to (tv audience, attendance, commercial revenue, etc). I will look it up and report back
  • Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    For all the talk of “this World Cup is crap” - naming no names but looking at you @Farooq - it turns out this crap World Cup is generating exceptional TV viewing figures

    3.5m in GERMANY watched the opening game: France v NZ. I also read that 20 MILLION+ Japanese watched the England Japan game

    These are phenomenal figures for a global minority sport. But also understandable, with all its blood and thunder, high quality international rugby is compelling viewing

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/20/rugby-world-cup-organisers-delighted-with-spectacular-tv-viewing-figures

    Rugby Union can become a massive sport if it plays this cleverly. Possibly even 3rd in the world after cricket - they are all behind football

    Pleased the Germams are getting into it. I'd love to see a few more Europeans taking the game seriously.

    But what talk of crapness? It's been brilliant! I have loved every game I've seen. My only small complaint is that it's not on every night - though I think the decision not to force the small countrues to play twice in four days like they used to is the right one.
    A couple of PBers - I won’t name them, out of basic common courtesy, but they were @Farooq and @Penddu2 - were saying the cup was crap coz of too many one sided games. I think that’s bollocks

    What these nameless PBers (@farooq and @Penddu2) don’t understand is that for every France v Namibia there is an Uruguay v Tonga where the smaller teams are really close and it’s exciting and these players get to strut their stuff on a massive world stage, in big full stadiums, with a huge TV audience. It will be the highlight of their careers and good for them! So the “nameless PB two” (@farooq and @penddu) have got it totally wrong

    Like you, I love it
  • Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    Not sure your vote will make much difference to Labour's seat count, though.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,134

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    I think 3 years of 'Boris' removed any chance of competence. The place has been trashed.
  • Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.



    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1704544691616891148/photo/1

    Doesn't tell us much unless we know how it overlaps with propensity to vote Conservative.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 689
    edited September 2023
    Cookie said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Namibia bet looks good - as does South Africa
    I dont think England will run in that many - bookies odd usually flatter England (in any sport)
    Australia Wales is difficult to predict. I originally predicted an Australian win, but having watched both Fiji games again I am going with Wales by 6. But it is your money. Go for it.

    Yes, I take the 'bookies odds flatter England' argument - I'm slightly hoping that England punter sentiment has swung too far the other way after the Japan match!
    A good England side should be well over 50 points better than Chile. This isn't a good England side. But it isn't as bad an England side as we are telling each other. It is a side with a lot of talent that is misfiring terribly but may at some point stop doing so.

    I would love to see Wales beat Australia. Neither side is at its usual standard, but I think Australia more likely to pull itself together. But you really never know with Wales. They never know when they're beaten.
    1. When was last time England scored 50 points against anyone (hoping without checking that it wasnt Wales..)
    2. Wales v Fiji were excellent until they relaxed in 4th quarter. Ditto 2nd match of Wales v England. Dont read anything into Portugal game - that was our subs.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,134
    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    Just on the scintilla of a sliver of a ghost of a chance you're only 90% trolling ... We don't want your vote.

    #qualitycontrol
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.


    If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
    Sunak reminds me of the guy who's so desperate to sell his house that he lists with every estate agent in the area and then has eight For Sale signs stuck in the front garden.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    "Immigration destroyed the Roman Empire. Now it could bring down Europe

    Woke bureaucrats see opposition to migration as knuckle-dragging racism. They should not be so quick to dismiss the public's concerns

    Jeff Fynn-Paul"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/immigration-roman-empire-europe-collapse/
  • Is next PM market with Starmer at 1/5 a value bet?

    Better than the local building society rate?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2023
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    I think 3 years of 'Boris' removed any chance of competence. The place has been trashed.
    Three years of Boris brought an end to theBrexit stalemate, turned a perilous deal with the DUP into a huge majority, then got hit by an unprecedented world pandemic before he could do anything. Any fair analysis of his Premiership would have to conclude he was ludicrously unfortunate

    This haters really hated him though, and so all the things they kept getting wrong about him at the referendum, and in the Tory leadership of 2019 are taken as the reasons for his demise
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    You haven't explained why you don't like the Tories at the moment, unless it's simply because of the new green policy.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    Oil over $90 a barrel. A lifeline for Putin. What pressure is being put on the Saudis over this?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,664
    edited September 2023

    Perhaps he should have announced phasing out

    boulay said:

    Stocky said:

    How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?

    So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?

    Utter incompetence.

    Firstly, he's not saying ICE cars will be available for sale after 2030 he's saying that consumers will not be stopped by the state from buying one assuming they are there. Secondly, this alters demand and may make manufacturers produce ICE cars for longer - up to them.
    Quite. Really rather bizarre that an avowed libertarian needs a gentle explanation of the free market but hey.
    I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.

    Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.

    So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.

    They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
    So Ford are geared up to only be selling new electric vehicles in the UK from 2030. If they are the only Fords available then the people who only will drive Fords will buy the electric ones, as they would if this policy wasn’t pushed back. Same for any carmaker who makes right hand drive models - if they choose to stick to the 2030 timetable which they have all geared towards then the market brings in the 2030 timetable anyway. Which car maker thinks it’s worth switching their plans for all electric anyway at this stage?

    If a car co suddenly thinks, hang on a minute, there’s a big market for five years to build ICE cars then they will, but they won’t.

    This policy will make fuck all difference and is merely cynical politics which might work but as Sunak is crap at politics it obviously won’t, unless it does.
    You seem to be assuming that people go out to buy a Ford rather than going out to buy a car.

    So Ford's assumption based on the policy was that someone buying a new car past 2030 in the UK literally couldn't get a new ICE so, obviously, they'd not supply them - and, crucially, nor would any of their competitors.

    But now, that isn't clear. So there will actually be a market for new ICE cars in 2030-35 (if the new policy survives), and Ford not offering an ICE option while Honda (say) do is bad news for Ford. Therefore Ford, and indeed Honda, will have to re-plan to ensure ICE models are available (and fewer EVs) because otherwise a competitor will gain a jump on them.

    I think you're wrong to believe car companies won't re-plan. They are in a difficult position because they might reason that actually Labour will get in and stick with 2030 - but that's a gamble as they might not be and it's two elections away. But in any event, yesterday they were sure it was 2030, now they aren't, and risk has a cost.

    And that's all apart from the separate point that the change more generally signals policy is inconsistent and even capricious in the UK. What other policy commitments aren't really policy commitments? How do you make investment decisions? It just injects risk into the system, and you might well shy away from investments.
    If electric cars are better and/or cheaper than ICE by 2030 then why would anyone buy an ICE car?

    All the manufacturers have to do is make sure they are and there won't be a problem.

    If the manufacturers worry that, actually, we aren't really sure that we'll cross that threshold by 2030, then isn't the government also right to be worried that it will be imposing costs in order to meet an arbitrary deadline?
    That's an argument for having no deadline at all (which actually Sunak isn't proposing - and I'm not sure any major politician is proposing).

    The trouble with doing that is that a load of investment that would have gone into ensuring EVs are an attractive proposition to consumers in 2030 go into ensuring you continue to have an ICE offering for those consumers who, for whatever reason (whether that is cost/quality or simply because they've been driving an ICE vehicle for 40 years) opt for that option.

    You've rather simplified the position by assuming that either everyone will want an EV or everyone will want an ICE because one will be superior and cheaper compared to the other, so just make sure it's EV and job's a good'un. There are areas where a technology does indeed wither and die very rapidly on that basis. But actually things often coexist for long periods - indeed makes and models of car do as Hondas and Fords have pros and cons for different people.
    I suspect ICE would rapidly die out or become a niche hobby for people like DuraAce if the technology did improve sufficiently - even without government intervention. I'm sure there would be a few hold-outs but probably not that many.

    Where I think the government should intervene if they want to give the change-over a nudge is making sure a charging system is available for those who need it and that there is sufficient generating capacity. That's perhaps where the deadlines should be applied rather than on an individual's choice.
  • Dallas, Florida and New York have been named as venues for the ICC Men's T20 World Cup in 2024 when USA hosts the event for the first time.

    The tournament, to be co-hosted by West Indies, will be the biggest in history, with 20 teams competing.

    A 34,000-seat modular stadium will be built at Eisenhower Park in Nassau County, New York, subject to a permit.

    Existing venues at Grand Prairie, Dallas, and Broward County in Florida will be increased in size.

    The ICC Board awarded the hosting of the event to the West Indies and the USA in November 2021.

    "The USA is a strategically important market and these venues give us an excellent opportunity to make a statement in the world's biggest sport market," International Cricket Council (ICC) chief executive Geoff Allardice said.

    "We explored a number of potential venue options in the country and we were hugely encouraged by the enthusiasm the event generated in prospective hosts, reinforcing the growing awareness around cricket's massive fanbase and its power to unite diverse communities."

    Major League Cricket, the inaugural T20 franchise tournament in the United States, was held for the first time in July.

    The World Cup will be held in North America for the first time in June 2024 - and the USA, who have not qualified for a major ICC tournament since the 2004, and West Indies have been granted automatic qualification as hosts.

    The ICC said it would utilise modular stadium infrastructure to develop "a world-class state-of-the-art" purpose-built stadium in New York, with two to three months of work scheduled to commence in late January 2024.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66863753
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.


    If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
    Sunak reminds me of the guy who's so desperate to sell his house that he lists with every estate agent in the area and then has eight For Sale signs stuck in the front garden.
    It's bloody pointless. EV is coming.

    If this policy "announcement" persuades UK based car manufacturers to delay changes then their lunch will be well and truly eaten by the chinese car people.

    ICE is over. Get the feck over it Sunak.

    The only bit of his verbal salad that actually mattered was warning the national grid has a real problem.

    If only he was PM and could actually do something about it.
  • Just to say: that statement from Ford. I’ve never heard a statement from industry about a UK government that is as withering as that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    You haven't explained why you don't like the Tories at the moment, unless it's simply because of the new green policy.
    Because they have no plan - for anything. Zero ideology. Zero ideas. Zero. ZERO. It’s all hand-to-mouth modest populism, and not even that well done

    Labour aren’t exactly a philosophical fountain of ideas but it’s a fair bet they will have SOME new thinking - after 13 years in opposition

  • I am now green on next election result* - with a heavy win if Starmer pulls off a majority.


    * barring Liberal outright majority.
  • Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
    If the blue and red walls fall then we're back to being a rural party aren't we?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
    Yes, I'm either staying home or voting Labour and I live in a marginal seat now.

    I just don't think the Tories deserve another 5 years. The last 3 years have been a disaster and they could have been an opportunity to reset the agenda but instead we've had Boris being a total arse, Liz Truss being a mentalist for a few weeks and now Rishi just plodding along hollowing out the country to continually give old people more money and the right more red meat.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    I think 3 years of 'Boris' removed any chance of competence. The place has been trashed.
    Three years of Boris brought an end to theBrexit stalemate, turned a perilous deal with the DUP into a huge majority, then got hit by an unprecedented world pandemic before he could do anything. Any fair analysis of his Premiership would have to conclude he was ludicrously unfortunate

    This haters really hated him though, and so all the things they kept getting wrong about him at the referendum, and in the Tory leadership of 2019 are taken as the reasons for his demise
    To be fair to Boris Johnson, you're entirely correct. History may well argue he was dealt the harshest of hands after winning the 2019 election. Within less than three months, he was facing an unprecedented public health emergency and was forced to take action which, you could tell, went against every fibre of his being.

    The truth is he spent nearly 20 years manoeuvring his way to the top of the Conservative Party and ultimately to No.10. He might have seen that as his destiny and he rode his luck, was mericless with anyone, friend or foe, who stood in the way.

    Perhaps if you ever need an example of Hubris and Nemesis, the political career of Boris Johnson might be a good place to start.
  • Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    You haven't explained why you don't like the Tories at the moment, unless it's simply because of the new green policy.
    Because they have no plan - for anything. Zero ideology. Zero ideas. Zero. ZERO. It’s all hand-to-mouth modest populism, and not even that well done

    Labour aren’t exactly a philosophical fountain of ideas but it’s a fair bet they will have SOME new thinking - after 13 years in opposition

    The other thing is their front bench.

    The obvious on the ball talent compared to the sack of end of days sadness that is the current tory front bench is deafening.

  • Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.



    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1704544691616891148/photo/1

    Doesn't tell us much unless we know how it overlaps with propensity to vote Conservative.
    I think the poll indicated that over 20% of 2019 Tory voters said they were less likely to vote Con as a result, while a similar percentage were more likely.
  • Andy_JS said:

    "Immigration destroyed the Roman Empire. Now it could bring down Europe

    Woke bureaucrats see opposition to migration as knuckle-dragging racism. They should not be so quick to dismiss the public's concerns

    Jeff Fynn-Paul"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/immigration-roman-empire-europe-collapse/

    I thought the Roman Empire was overrun by moody teenagers in black eyeliner.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.


    If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
    Sunak reminds me of the guy who's so desperate to sell his house that he lists with every estate agent in the area and then has eight For Sale signs stuck in the front garden.
    It's bloody pointless. EV is coming.

    If this policy "announcement" persuades UK based car manufacturers to delay changes then their lunch will be well and truly eaten by the chinese car people.

    ICE is over. Get the feck over it Sunak.

    The only bit of his verbal salad that actually mattered was warning the national grid has a real problem.

    If only he was PM and could actually do something about it.
    So why don't other countries have the 2030 target?
  • Sunak Weakens U.K. Climate Targets as Election Approaches

    "After years of claiming leadership in the international fight against climate change, Britain’s government on Wednesday gambled on an abrupt change of course, weakening key environmental pledges and promising lower costs for Britons who will soon be asked to vote in a general election."


    NY Times
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404

    Just to say: that statement from Ford. I’ve never heard a statement from industry about a UK government that is as withering as that.

    Ford are just odious slugs, they have screwed this country over for the last 30 years and expect us to bail them out every time. Usually its their UK management who do it

    Germany moved its dates back to 2035. Ford has some of its biggest operations there. I appear to have missed the tsunami of outrage from Ford execs at the German government.

    Turds in suits the lot of them.

  • TazTaz Posts: 14,376

    Oil over $90 a barrel. A lifeline for Putin. What pressure is being put on the Saudis over this?

    Press reports Biden does not have a great relationship with them, if that is the case it limits what can be done.

  • TazTaz Posts: 14,376

    Andy_JS said:

    "Immigration destroyed the Roman Empire. Now it could bring down Europe

    Woke bureaucrats see opposition to migration as knuckle-dragging racism. They should not be so quick to dismiss the public's concerns

    Jeff Fynn-Paul"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/immigration-roman-empire-europe-collapse/

    I thought the Roman Empire was overrun by moody teenagers in black eyeliner.
    Even the countryside is racist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/20/ramblers-study-whitest-areas-more-local-paths
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.


    If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
    Sunak reminds me of the guy who's so desperate to sell his house that he lists with every estate agent in the area and then has eight For Sale signs stuck in the front garden.
    It's bloody pointless. EV is coming.

    If this policy "announcement" persuades UK based car manufacturers to delay changes then their lunch will be well and truly eaten by the chinese car people.

    ICE is over. Get the feck over it Sunak.

    The only bit of his verbal salad that actually mattered was warning the national grid has a real problem.

    If only he was PM and could actually do something about it.
    So why don't other countries have the 2030 target?
    Because they don't understand where market forces are taking things.

    We will laugh in 2030 that anyone thought seven years ago that we could still buy a new petrol car.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826

    Sunak Weakens U.K. Climate Targets as Election Approaches

    "After years of claiming leadership in the international fight against climate change, Britain’s government on Wednesday gambled on an abrupt change of course, weakening key environmental pledges and promising lower costs for Britons who will soon be asked to vote in a general election."


    NY Times

    Whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy, don't bother with the NYT. Some of its coverage may be good but when it comes to the UK the paper has had an absurd agenda since Brexit.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,035
    stodge said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    I think 3 years of 'Boris' removed any chance of competence. The place has been trashed.
    Three years of Boris brought an end to theBrexit stalemate, turned a perilous deal with the DUP into a huge majority, then got hit by an unprecedented world pandemic before he could do anything. Any fair analysis of his Premiership would have to conclude he was ludicrously unfortunate

    This haters really hated him though, and so all the things they kept getting wrong about him at the referendum, and in the Tory leadership of 2019 are taken as the reasons for his demise
    To be fair to Boris Johnson, you're entirely correct. History may well argue he was dealt the harshest of hands after winning the 2019 election. Within less than three months, he was facing an unprecedented public health emergency and was forced to take action which, you could tell, went against every fibre of his being.

    I think this is correct. He was also right to be sceptical of lockdowns - I'm just sorry he was ultimately overwhelmed, but it was probably inevitable. He was also entirely right on the two huge questions of vaccines and Ukraine.

    But, though he could be good at crisis management, he was uninterested in routine policy-making, and the hard graft of governing, something that Mrs Thatcher, for instance, loved. And he was appalling at choosing and managing people. Dominic Cummings, an indifferent blogger, is the obvious example.

    So, on the whole, he wasn't fit to be PM. Even though nobody else on the current political scene is any better, and lots are rather worse.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,806

    Foxy said:

    Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.



    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1704544691616891148/photo/1

    Rather meaningless poll.

    Considering 60% would never vote Tory anyway, I'm surprised its not even higher just from people who dislike the Tories saying that.
    An important GOTV factor for the young who might be a bit apathetic about Starmerism, but who don't want the planet trashed by Sunak.
    Ratio of more than 3:1 between those who say that it would make them less likely v more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Sunak whichever way it's spun.
    Sunak is taking the electorate for fools. And they really aren’t as stupid as he thinks.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    edited September 2023
    Kudos to Prospect Magazine for leaving this on their website - (for now).

    "World Thinkers 2015: Russell Brand
    Comedian, actor and activist. United Kingdom

    By Prospect Team
    February 16, 2015"

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/47203/world-thinkers-2015-russell-brand

    "Brand is the spiritual leader of Britain’s disaffected anti-capitalist youth. In October he published Revolution, a manifesto for the radical redistribution of wealth and power. Dismissed by his opponents as a clownish opportunist, he is nevertheless the most charismatic figure on Britain’s populist left. Brand’s inclusion on Prospect’s list did not meet with universal approval—the Guardian, for instance, said that his “presence looks designed to be provocative.” But other commentators came to his—and our—defence, with one suggesting that many of the criticisms levelled at Brand simply remind us that the “incessant demand for criticism to be ‘constructive’ is another way of defending the status quo.”"
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    Evening all :)

    I'm no friend of the current Government though I do recognise the Conservatives have always had a strong sense of responsibility to the environment. I'm obviously not talking about eco-authoritarianism or eco-fanaticism but the recognition that inheritance and conservatism means leaving an environment or planet in good shape for future generations.

    Inheritance, we are told, is the cornerstone of conservatism - it's not just the financial inheritance from family but the wider cultural inheritance to whose protection Conservatives have always been committed. Sunak seems to have sacrificed notions of environmental inheritance on the altar of short-term political expediency.

    Will it "win" any votes? There is undoubtedly a constituency for pro-car, pro-driving,. anti-"the Green Crap" policies especially among those whose line might be "yes, something must be done but it's the Chinese, Indians and others who should be doing it, we've done our share".

    It smacks of the classic campaigning "clear blue water" beloved of Conservative strategists who clearly thought the closeness of Conservative and Labour policies meant people felt they could vote Labour without consequence. Make it a choice, so the argument goes, and the doubtful will return to the fold.

    We'll see - nothing has moved the polls so far this year.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.


    If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
    Sunak reminds me of the guy who's so desperate to sell his house that he lists with every estate agent in the area and then has eight For Sale signs stuck in the front garden.
    It's bloody pointless. EV is coming.

    If this policy "announcement" persuades UK based car manufacturers to delay changes then their lunch will be well and truly eaten by the chinese car people.

    ICE is over. Get the feck over it Sunak.

    The only bit of his verbal salad that actually mattered was warning the national grid has a real problem.

    If only he was PM and could actually do something about it.
    So why don't other countries have the 2030 target?
    Because they don't understand where market forces are taking things.

    We will laugh in 2030 that anyone thought seven years ago that we could still buy a new petrol car.
    So why does the announcement matter then? You only need regulation if market forces won't do the job on their own.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404

    Sunak Weakens U.K. Climate Targets as Election Approaches

    "After years of claiming leadership in the international fight against climate change, Britain’s government on Wednesday gambled on an abrupt change of course, weakening key environmental pledges and promising lower costs for Britons who will soon be asked to vote in a general election."


    NY Times

    LOL

    the world's second largest polluter speaks.
  • Farooq said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Immigration destroyed the Roman Empire. Now it could bring down Europe

    Woke bureaucrats see opposition to migration as knuckle-dragging racism. They should not be so quick to dismiss the public's concerns

    Jeff Fynn-Paul"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/immigration-roman-empire-europe-collapse/

    "Tell me you don't understand the demise of the Roman Empire without saying you don't understand the demise of the Roman Empire"
    The author teaches history at the University of Leiden and has published monographs on the middle ages.

    https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/jeffrey-fynn-paul
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    edited September 2023

    We face a bleak future. Physical places. People. Gathering. Belonging. Social.

    Eating sandwiches alone...

    BBC East Midlands
    @bbcemt
    ·
    1h
    "I could sob my socks off." 💔

    Gladys, 98, used to eat her sandwiches in her local Wilko shop, which has now closed.

    Read more: https://bbc.in/48hf57T

    https://twitter.com/bbcemt/status/1704546462326210568

    Reading this is just what Leon needs to cure his boredom while in France.
  • Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
    If the blue and red walls fall then we're back to being a rural party aren't we?
    Yes. Apart from the south-west. And the Cotswolds. And North Shropshire. And (contd. p94)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
    What the latest few policy announcements have done however is probably shore up the male pensioner vote, and there are quite a lot of male pensioners on the electoral register.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    I'm no friend of the current Government though I do recognise the Conservatives have always had a strong sense of responsibility to the environment. I'm obviously not talking about eco-authoritarianism or eco-fanaticism but the recognition that inheritance and conservatism means leaving an environment or planet in good shape for future generations.

    Inheritance, we are told, is the cornerstone of conservatism - it's not just the financial inheritance from family but the wider cultural inheritance to whose protection Conservatives have always been committed. Sunak seems to have sacrificed notions of environmental inheritance on the altar of short-term political expediency.

    Will it "win" any votes? There is undoubtedly a constituency for pro-car, pro-driving,. anti-"the Green Crap" policies especially among those whose line might be "yes, something must be done but it's the Chinese, Indians and others who should be doing it, we've done our share".

    It smacks of the classic campaigning "clear blue water" beloved of Conservative strategists who clearly thought the closeness of Conservative and Labour policies meant people felt they could vote Labour without consequence. Make it a choice, so the argument goes, and the doubtful will return to the fold.

    We'll see - nothing has moved the polls so far this year.

    By 2029 Labour politicians will be building shrines to Sunak as he's let them off the hook for a whole pile of measures this country is incapable of delivering and they'd get the blame.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    Fishing said:

    stodge said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    I think 3 years of 'Boris' removed any chance of competence. The place has been trashed.
    Three years of Boris brought an end to theBrexit stalemate, turned a perilous deal with the DUP into a huge majority, then got hit by an unprecedented world pandemic before he could do anything. Any fair analysis of his Premiership would have to conclude he was ludicrously unfortunate

    This haters really hated him though, and so all the things they kept getting wrong about him at the referendum, and in the Tory leadership of 2019 are taken as the reasons for his demise
    To be fair to Boris Johnson, you're entirely correct. History may well argue he was dealt the harshest of hands after winning the 2019 election. Within less than three months, he was facing an unprecedented public health emergency and was forced to take action which, you could tell, went against every fibre of his being.

    I think this is correct. He was also right to be sceptical of lockdowns - I'm just sorry he was ultimately overwhelmed, but it was probably inevitable. He was also entirely right on the two huge questions of vaccines and Ukraine.

    But, though he could be good at crisis management, he was uninterested in routine policy-making, and the hard graft of governing, something that Mrs Thatcher, for instance, loved. And he was appalling at choosing and managing people. Dominic Cummings, an indifferent blogger, is the obvious example.

    So, on the whole, he wasn't fit to be PM. Even though nobody else on the current political scene is any better, and lots are rather worse.
    To an extent, yes. I think he saw himself more as a Master of Ceremonies, whose main job was to talk the country up and keep everything upbeat and positive. With no Covid, he could have used 2020 to cement his positive populism and reinvigorate the Conservative brand but history doesn't play those games and ultimately Johnsonian optimism was undone by the negativity of a virus.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.


    If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
    Sunak reminds me of the guy who's so desperate to sell his house that he lists with every estate agent in the area and then has eight For Sale signs stuck in the front garden.
    It's bloody pointless. EV is coming.

    If this policy "announcement" persuades UK based car manufacturers to delay changes then their lunch will be well and truly eaten by the chinese car people.

    ICE is over. Get the feck over it Sunak.

    The only bit of his verbal salad that actually mattered was warning the national grid has a real problem.

    If only he was PM and could actually do something about it.
    I'm actually not that bothered by it - the government is following the market rather than leading it.

    EVs are still too expensive for too many people, and the charging infrastructure crap.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    @hugorifkind

    Pretty special to scrap environmental policies and get flayed for it by THE CAR INDUSTRY. Even on his own terms, the man is a calamity.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    Taz said:

    Oil over $90 a barrel. A lifeline for Putin. What pressure is being put on the Saudis over this?

    Press reports Biden does not have a great relationship with them, if that is the case it limits what can be done.

    I wonder if they are trying to help Trump get re-elected?
  • Andy_JS said:

    Kudos to Prospect Magazine for leaving this on their website - (for now).

    "World Thinkers 2015: Russell Brand
    Comedian, actor and activist. United Kingdom

    By Prospect Team
    February 16, 2015"

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/47203/world-thinkers-2015-russell-brand

    "Brand is the spiritual leader of Britain’s disaffected anti-capitalist youth. In October he published Revolution, a manifesto for the radical redistribution of wealth and power. Dismissed by his opponents as a clownish opportunist, he is nevertheless the most charismatic figure on Britain’s populist left. Brand’s inclusion on Prospect’s list did not meet with universal approval—the Guardian, for instance, said that his “presence looks designed to be provocative.” But other commentators came to his—and our—defence, with one suggesting that many of the criticisms levelled at Brand simply remind us that the “incessant demand for criticism to be ‘constructive’ is another way of defending the status quo.”"

    I bet he wouldn't want his own wealth and power radically redistributed.
  • Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
    If the blue and red walls fall then we're back to being a rural party aren't we?
    Yes. Apart from the south-west. And the Cotswolds. And North Shropshire. And (contd. p94)
    I expect the South West to be bloody for the Tories.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    I know Richi said "It's not about the politics" minutes before putting out a press release about the questions Labour now has to answer, but have they asked the vital question yet?

    Are Labour just in the pocket of Big Bin ???
  • wow.


    "Could he beat that? He could, in the very next line. People were tired of slogans, he said, standing behind a lectern that read “Long Term Decisions For A Brighter Future”.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/a-bonfire-of-the-straw-men/

    "In 20 years covering British politics, I can recall only one other announcement which mixed such transparent cynicism with so many pleas for us to report this as a courageous and principled decision. It was from David Miliband, postponing plans for an electorally painful council tax revaluation. It’s not hard to tell the difference between the two men. One is Oxford-educated, immensely self-satisfied, was hugely hyped but lost a leadership election, and is happier in America. The other is Ralph Miliband’s son."
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
    Yes, I'm either staying home or voting Labour and I live in a marginal seat now.

    I just don't think the Tories deserve another 5 years. The last 3 years have been a disaster and they could have been an opportunity to reset the agenda but instead we've had Boris being a total arse, Liz Truss being a mentalist for a few weeks and now Rishi just plodding along hollowing out the country to continually give old people more money and the right more red meat.
    My problem is there isn't enough red meat.

    A bigger one is a simply don't know what Rishi Sunak's prospectus is for the next parliament or what his vision is.

    I'm certainly not voting Labour. It will definitely cost me thousands more in taxes and prices, and it's easy to forget just how much they like nannying and regulating us.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    You haven't explained why you don't like the Tories at the moment, unless it's simply because of the new green policy.
    Because they have no plan - for anything. Zero ideology. Zero ideas. Zero. ZERO. It’s all hand-to-mouth modest populism, and not even that well done

    Labour aren’t exactly a philosophical fountain of ideas but it’s a fair bet they will have SOME new thinking - after 13 years in opposition

    Whereas Cameron, Osborne, May and Johnson were all so sophisticated? Has the penny just dropped?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,134
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
    Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
    It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
    I think 3 years of 'Boris' removed any chance of competence. The place has been trashed.
    Three years of Boris brought an end to theBrexit stalemate, turned a perilous deal with the DUP into a huge majority, then got hit by an unprecedented world pandemic before he could do anything. Any fair analysis of his Premiership would have to conclude he was ludicrously unfortunate

    This haters really hated him though, and so all the things they kept getting wrong about him at the referendum, and in the Tory leadership of 2019 are taken as the reasons for his demise
    He was good at elections but not fit for high office.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,134

    Sunak Weakens U.K. Climate Targets as Election Approaches

    "After years of claiming leadership in the international fight against climate change, Britain’s government on Wednesday gambled on an abrupt change of course, weakening key environmental pledges and promising lower costs for Britons who will soon be asked to vote in a general election."


    NY Times

    LOL

    the world's second largest polluter speaks.
    You're not that bad, Alan, surely.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404
    kinabalu said:

    Sunak Weakens U.K. Climate Targets as Election Approaches

    "After years of claiming leadership in the international fight against climate change, Britain’s government on Wednesday gambled on an abrupt change of course, weakening key environmental pledges and promising lower costs for Britons who will soon be asked to vote in a general election."


    NY Times

    LOL

    the world's second largest polluter speaks.
    You're not that bad, Alan, surely.
    I actually cheered up when Sunak unleashed his bombshell. A shitload of pointless diktat binned and money goes back in to peoples pockets. The whole concept of "green" needs stripped back and made relevant to this country.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633

    Just to say: that statement from Ford. I’ve never heard a statement from industry about a UK government that is as withering as that.

    It's quite something that a move against Environmentalism is slated by motor manufacturers.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    edited September 2023
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    Just on the scintilla of a sliver of a ghost of a chance you're only 90% trolling ... We don't want your vote.

    #qualitycontrol
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    Just on the scintilla of a sliver of a ghost of a chance you're only 90% trolling ... We don't want your vote.

    #qualitycontrol
    The idea it will discomfit you only makes it more appealing, of course

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    You haven't explained why you don't like the Tories at the moment, unless it's simply because of the new green policy.
    Because they have no plan - for anything. Zero ideology. Zero ideas. Zero. ZERO. It’s all hand-to-mouth modest populism, and not even that well done

    Labour aren’t exactly a philosophical fountain of ideas but it’s a fair bet they will have SOME new thinking - after 13 years in opposition

    Whereas Cameron, Osborne, May and Johnson were all so sophisticated? Has the penny just dropped?
    The past is another country

    I hated TMay but she was facing Corbyn. QED

    Boris had to win to prevent the major catastrophe of a 2nd referendum without enacting the first. Which might have destroyed British democracy forever. How easily we forget the outrage that was proposed by the “2nd voters”

    They should all face a trial of the people: they should never be allowed to forget what they wanted
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    Scott_xP said:

    I know Richi said "It's not about the politics" minutes before putting out a press release about the questions Labour now has to answer, but have they asked the vital question yet?

    Are Labour just in the pocket of Big Bin ???

    I reckon it is to try to keep his own seat by taking votes from Count Binface.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    edited September 2023
    Deleted due to vanilla being a dick
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404
    Foxy said:

    Just to say: that statement from Ford. I’ve never heard a statement from industry about a UK government that is as withering as that.

    It's quite something that a move against Environmentalism is slated by motor manufacturers.
    Thats the problem when they spend their bonuses before they get them.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    80% of pb appears to have taken leave of its senses. And unlike Trump and possibly Johnson, it doesn't seem that Sunak is a gaslighter.
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,457
    .

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.

    Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.


    If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
    Sunak reminds me of the guy who's so desperate to sell his house that he lists with every estate agent in the area and then has eight For Sale signs stuck in the front garden.
    It's bloody pointless. EV is coming.

    If this policy "announcement" persuades UK based car manufacturers to delay changes then their lunch will be well and truly eaten by the chinese car people.

    ICE is over. Get the feck over it Sunak.

    The only bit of his verbal salad that actually mattered was warning the national grid has a real problem.

    If only he was PM and could actually do something about it.
    Total energy supplied was about 261,254 GWh in 2022, down from 345,853 GWh in 2003 - so about a 25% drop.

    I assume the grid still has roughly the same total capacity as it did in 2003, so surely that implies that there's considerable headroom available for electrification of transport & heating? (especially since almost all of that can easily be shifted out of the handful of hours each year when demand is highest)

    Obviously the pattern of generation has changed hugely, with windfarm interconnections on the coasts rather than thermal power stations in coal-producing areas. But surely that's a matter for National Grid and the windfarm operators to work out for themselves?

    Is there really a huge problem lurking there that government needs to get involved with?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    @paulwaugh

    Official DEFRA guidance sent out to industry tonight lays bare the fiction of
    @RishiSunak
    suggesting he was bravely protecting us all from 7 BINS.

    'Whilst it was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households..'
  • Onana is the new Masimo Taibi.
  • This is what is fucking the Tories, the perceptions around this, following the PPE stuff.

    One of the Conservatives’ biggest ever donors has profited from £135m of contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care in under four years.

    Frank Hester, a healthcare tech entrepreneur whose company supplies computer systems to the NHS, gave Rishi Sunak’s party £5m this summer, the joint biggest donation to the Tories in decades.

    His company, the Phoenix Partnership (TPP), paid out more than £20m in dividends between 2019 and 2022, with Hester the only shareholder.

    The group supplies software to about 2,700 GP surgeries in England as well as support services to allow them to hold medical records for patients electronically.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/one-of-tories-biggest-ever-donors-frank-hester-profited-from-135m-of-nhs-contracts
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    Scott_xP said:

    @paulwaugh

    Official DEFRA guidance sent out to industry tonight lays bare the fiction of
    @RishiSunak
    suggesting he was bravely protecting us all from 7 BINS.

    'Whilst it was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households..'

    Bins are living collection-free in Rishi’s head. I’ve got him scared.

    https://twitter.com/CountBinface/status/1704558748189036751?t=nPe4vspP8XPK7waUfQMROg&s=19
  • Leon said:

    This whole green u-turn kerfuffle from the Tories is convincing me, once again, that I probably need to vote Labour

    Don’t get me wrong. I hate Labour. I mistrust Starmer. I loathe, with revolutionary zeal, everywhere about Wokeness. And Labour will do lots of Woke things

    But I believe Starmer’s Labour are basically patriotic, unionist, and capitalist and they won’t destroy the country (unlike Corbyn). They won’t disarm us of our nukes, they won’t impose an insane wealth tax which will demolish London

    So they are just about tolerable. In which case they will probably get my vote because if they are to govern well they need a big majority so they have confidence to enact real reforms over 5 or 10 years. And see them through. And finish things like HS2 and NPR. The Tories are just desperately politicking with an eye to the polls next month

    I know PB doesn’t believe me, but as things stand I am voting for my constituency MP. Sir Kir “Royale” Starmer

    I'm calling it. There's gonna be a landslide.

    I've heard similar things from those I'd consider to be core Tories, and even those who aren't are saying they don't deserve another term.

    It's that which has convinced me.
    If the blue and red walls fall then we're back to being a rural party aren't we?
    Yes. Apart from the south-west. And the Cotswolds. And North Shropshire. And (contd. p94)
    I expect the South West to be bloody for the Tories.
    Best bet is probably the ring just either side of the M25, though maybe not Surrey. Perhaps similar fringes around other conurbations. But that's not going to be enough.

    Thought- what seems so fatal for Rishi is the sense of people talking back at his claims. No meat tax and all that. Partly because it's true, mostly because people feel able to say it.

    And whereas Boris lied all the time (which is ultimately why he had to go), he managed a lightness of touch that helped him get away with it. RIshi doesn't have that.

    The problem isn't just that Rishi is a Boris Johnson tribute act (though he is, and that's a problem). It's that he's a really really bad one.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    The latest welsh polling from Redfield & Wilton.

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-welsh-westminster-senedd-voting-intention-16-17-september-2023/

    The Westminster numbers look difficult for the Conservatives, the Senedd numbers slightly less so though perhaps suggesting the August numbers were an outlier.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    edited September 2023
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Immigration destroyed the Roman Empire. Now it could bring down Europe

    Woke bureaucrats see opposition to migration as knuckle-dragging racism. They should not be so quick to dismiss the public's concerns

    Jeff Fynn-Paul"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/immigration-roman-empire-europe-collapse/

    "Tell me you don't understand the demise of the Roman Empire without saying you don't understand the demise of the Roman Empire"
    The author teaches history at the University of Leiden and has published monographs on the middle ages.

    https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/jeffrey-fynn-paul
    And if he's the one who wrote the words "Immigration destroyed the Roman Empire" then he doesn't know what he's talking about. Reductive reason-seeking like this for hugely complex historical processes like this are only made either in ignorance or mischief. As a disconnected statement, it's utter ahistorical garbage.
    There are quite a lot of idiots teaching history in many unis. Heck, even Tristram Hunt was a history lecturer, albeit only at QMUL which is a notorious shitheap.

    But in this particular case, he's a specialist in late medieval Spanish history. There is no reason why his understanding of the Roman Empire would be better than that of any ordinary person in the street.

    I suppose you make a case that the Visigoths, Vandals, Huns etc were immigrants but they were shall we say, not really analogous to modern immigrants in their actions.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188

    This is what is fucking the Tories, the perceptions around this, following the PPE stuff.

    One of the Conservatives’ biggest ever donors has profited from £135m of contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care in under four years.

    Frank Hester, a healthcare tech entrepreneur whose company supplies computer systems to the NHS, gave Rishi Sunak’s party £5m this summer, the joint biggest donation to the Tories in decades.

    His company, the Phoenix Partnership (TPP), paid out more than £20m in dividends between 2019 and 2022, with Hester the only shareholder.

    The group supplies software to about 2,700 GP surgeries in England as well as support services to allow them to hold medical records for patients electronically.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/one-of-tories-biggest-ever-donors-frank-hester-profited-from-135m-of-nhs-contracts

    lol - Says something about the entire system that the entirely non govermental part of the state, the courts, can stop Sizewell C being built seemingly but can't touch this stuff.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404

    This is what is fucking the Tories, the perceptions around this, following the PPE stuff.

    One of the Conservatives’ biggest ever donors has profited from £135m of contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care in under four years.

    Frank Hester, a healthcare tech entrepreneur whose company supplies computer systems to the NHS, gave Rishi Sunak’s party £5m this summer, the joint biggest donation to the Tories in decades.

    His company, the Phoenix Partnership (TPP), paid out more than £20m in dividends between 2019 and 2022, with Hester the only shareholder.

    The group supplies software to about 2,700 GP surgeries in England as well as support services to allow them to hold medical records for patients electronically.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/one-of-tories-biggest-ever-donors-frank-hester-profited-from-135m-of-nhs-contracts

    And yet somehow Dale Vince who makes his dosh from supplying electricity and gave labour £1,5 million doesnt worry them.

    Looks like the election is starting to get warmed up.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,663
    Leon said:

    Deleted due to vanilla being a dick

    A bad workman blames his tool.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    I think too many are thinking this u-turn will comeback to haunt Sunak .

    I generally start with the view that most of the public are gullible idiots excluding PB members of course !

    So his man of the people performance might dupe some .
  • Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.



    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1704544691616891148/photo/1

    Is that of all voters?

    Or just conservative voters?

    If the 40% are existing Lib Dem / Labour voters then… hmmh

    If the 12% who are more likely to vote Tory are ex-2019 Tory now DK or whatever Farage’s leftovers are called today then maybe more interesting?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404
    Pulpstar said:

    This is what is fucking the Tories, the perceptions around this, following the PPE stuff.

    One of the Conservatives’ biggest ever donors has profited from £135m of contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care in under four years.

    Frank Hester, a healthcare tech entrepreneur whose company supplies computer systems to the NHS, gave Rishi Sunak’s party £5m this summer, the joint biggest donation to the Tories in decades.

    His company, the Phoenix Partnership (TPP), paid out more than £20m in dividends between 2019 and 2022, with Hester the only shareholder.

    The group supplies software to about 2,700 GP surgeries in England as well as support services to allow them to hold medical records for patients electronically.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/one-of-tories-biggest-ever-donors-frank-hester-profited-from-135m-of-nhs-contracts

    lol - Says something about the entire system that the entirely non govermental part of the state, the courts, can stop Sizewell C being built seemingly but can't touch this stuff.
    too many shithead lawyers in Parliament. They keep passing laws without understanding the consequences.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    "Konstantin Kisin reposted
    Nick Dixon
    @nickdixoncomic

    Sep 19
    Russell Brand conned the liberal media for years by behaving exactly the same in public and in private, and documenting his behaviour in writing in case they somehow missed it.

    It is not clear at this stage if he literally drew them a picture."

    https://twitter.com/nickdixoncomic/status/1704118787132330273
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    edited September 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    "Konstantin Kisin reposted
    Nick Dixon
    @nickdixoncomic

    Sep 19
    Russell Brand conned the liberal media for years by behaving exactly the same in public and in private, and documenting his behaviour in writing in case they somehow missed it.

    It is not clear at this stage if he literally drew them a picture."

    https://twitter.com/nickdixoncomic/status/1704118787132330273

    Unless he gave them a microscope as well there wouldn't have been much point.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,660

    This is what is fucking the Tories, the perceptions around this, following the PPE stuff.

    One of the Conservatives’ biggest ever donors has profited from £135m of contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care in under four years.

    Frank Hester, a healthcare tech entrepreneur whose company supplies computer systems to the NHS, gave Rishi Sunak’s party £5m this summer, the joint biggest donation to the Tories in decades.

    His company, the Phoenix Partnership (TPP), paid out more than £20m in dividends between 2019 and 2022, with Hester the only shareholder.

    The group supplies software to about 2,700 GP surgeries in England as well as support services to allow them to hold medical records for patients electronically.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/one-of-tories-biggest-ever-donors-frank-hester-profited-from-135m-of-nhs-contracts

    Nothing will be as blatant as Handcock's landlord-gate.
  • Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.



    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1704544691616891148/photo/1

    Is that of all voters?

    Or just conservative voters?

    If the 40% are existing Lib Dem / Labour voters then… hmmh

    If the 12% who are more likely to vote Tory are ex-2019 Tory now DK or whatever Farage’s leftovers are called today then maybe more interesting?
    The way I would ask this question is as follows:

    Using a scale of 1-10, where 1=Not at all likely and 10=Extremely likely, how likely were you to vote Conservative prior to todays announcements on climate policy? And how likely are you to vote Conservative now?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986

    80% of pb appears to have taken leave of its senses. And unlike Trump and possibly Johnson, it doesn't seem that Sunak is a gaslighter.

    “I’ve blocked the meat tax, cancelled 7 bins, and scrapped compulsory car sharing.”

    #gaslighter
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,404
    TimS said:

    80% of pb appears to have taken leave of its senses. And unlike Trump and possibly Johnson, it doesn't seem that Sunak is a gaslighter.

    “I’ve blocked the meat tax, cancelled 7 bins, and scrapped compulsory car sharing.”

    #gaslighter
    clever.

    Starmer wont know what to U turn on
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,075
    stodge said:

    The latest welsh polling from Redfield & Wilton.

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-welsh-westminster-senedd-voting-intention-16-17-september-2023/

    The Westminster numbers look difficult for the Conservatives, the Senedd numbers slightly less so though perhaps suggesting the August numbers were an outlier.

    Bbbut petition! PETITION!!!

    :)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553

    80% of pb appears to have taken leave of its senses. And unlike Trump and possibly Johnson, it doesn't seem that Sunak is a gaslighter.

    Which 80% did you have in mind?
This discussion has been closed.