The Mail comments section is, to put it mildly, not a representative sample.
Though it does tend to reflect the mood of the British Right
Good afternoon
Though that is not the road to government anymore than supporting Corbyn was for labour
People forget in 2017 Corbyn got 40% of the vote and a hung parliament and nearly became PM, even if Boris then trounced him in 2019.
If the government is unpopular and led by an uncharismatic PM, even a hard right or hard left leader has a chance to win
You win from the centre
Not always, Callaghan was the centrist candidate in 1979, not Thatcher. Neither Johnson nor Corbyn were centrist in 2019 and as stated Corbyn nearly beat the more centrist May in 2017
Nearly beat means didn't beat. The more centrist May won.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
Until the 1990s however 90% of the population didn't go to university at all, so free university education only benefited the elite anyway.
Until the 1980s most people rented as well, only in the last few decades have most owned their own homes, helped by right to buy of course
Nonsense. Quite a few working class and poorer middle class people got to university that way pre-1990s. I sure did. Really pissed off the conservative elite who think they should be the only ones who go to uni, as you demonstrate still.
They may have done but only because they were academic enough to be in the top 10% and enter the elite who were deemed suitable of a university education and then largely entered the professions (as they still do today, the number of top professional jobs hasn't expanded much beyond the levels of the 1980s even if the number of graduates has)
But they weren't the elite to begin with. That's the whole point.
PS And if you are going to cram every single schoolteacher, for instance, into the 'elite' of 1989, then that is getting thoroughly muddled.
So, they were still the academic elite. You only used to need a degree to be a doctor or surgeon, lawyer, Professor, senior engineer or top civil servant or a member of the clergy or secondary school teacher. Taxpayers could afford to pay for that.
Now you need a degree even to be a middle manager or police officer or primary school teacher or to be a nurse with all the fees to match.
But those were still provided by the taxpayer. They were vcalled polytechnics or nursing bursaries or police cadet training.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
I am now considering going on this march on Saturday.
I wouldn't have remotely considered it, if it hadn't been for Braverman. But I think she has turned it into a question of principle.
Fine but be aware Tommy Robinson's EDL are turning up at the same time so it may not be an entirely peaceful afternoon
Yeah, and I wonder why they feel emboldened to? Is it because politicians in government / the governing party, along with the right wing press, have blown the pro-Palestinian marches out of such proportion that they feel like they will be heroes for doing so - deputising themselves to do what the "woke" Met won't?
Back when I was helping to run student demos. the same kind of people would infest your demo, if you didn't accept the help of the police in weeding them out. If the demo was about cause X, you'd get an infestation of right wing fuckwits. If it was about Y, you got the left wing fuckwits.
They never seemed to need much emboldening.
Hopefully the people running the pro-Palestine demo this weekend are accepting advice - otherwise they will get a nasty case of Black Blok types and Religious Fascists. Shame that we can't pen those beauties up with the EDL in an amphitheatre and get pop corn....
In the demos I go the Met make sure the fash are safe to scream and shout and literally do "Roman salutes" and push back local activists who want them out of their neighbourhood with batons; working with the cops doesn't necessarily protect you from the fascists, especially if their only advice is "well, don't do the protest and the fash won't show up".
Out of interest, why are you going on fascist demos?
Looking for fashion tips?
I'm thinking the use of a Bergman is far more classy than an MP40, but the medallioned tassels are not well coordinated with the magazine pouches.
What's the pistol the chap with the boom box is using? Seems to be toggling, so a P08?
Looks more like a P38 to me.
Unusual to see a MP 18 - it's not a Lanchester by the look of it either.
Former minister tells me: “Either she goes today or Sunday/Monday. First, it’s the insubordination, Second is the ministerial code. Everybody’s livid, there’s a lot of messaging of the chief whip saying enough is enough”
Exclusive: Sunak’s team has held talks this week about a Cabinet reshuffle, multiple sources say
— Oliver Dowden met with No10 for discussions
— some in govt pushing for it to be brought forward to as soon as next week
— No10, Dowden decline to comment
So he’ll try and reshuffle Braverman out of the Home Office, she’ll say no, he’ll be forced to sack her, she’ll run immediately to the media telling them how he didn’t have the guts to support her. Very predictable.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
My Dad was born in 1946, so he's 77, but still going strong. My daughter, currently one of five grandchildren, is 21. If my Dad lives as long as his Dad, then my daughter will be in her 40s before she can hope to inherit anything from him. Asking people to wait for an inheritance isn't going to do much good for them.
Depends how you manage your finances. My parents passed me cash quite early and Ive done the same to my kids.
BUT are you still selfishly hogging the family furniture, to the detriment and discomfort of your heirs?
That would be my wife. She's a hoarder Im a minimalist.
I am now considering going on this march on Saturday.
I wouldn't have remotely considered it, if it hadn't been for Braverman. But I think she has turned it into a question of principle.
Fine but be aware Tommy Robinson's EDL are turning up at the same time so it may not be an entirely peaceful afternoon
Yeah, and I wonder why they feel emboldened to? Is it because politicians in government / the governing party, along with the right wing press, have blown the pro-Palestinian marches out of such proportion that they feel like they will be heroes for doing so - deputising themselves to do what the "woke" Met won't?
Back when I was helping to run student demos. the same kind of people would infest your demo, if you didn't accept the help of the police in weeding them out. If the demo was about cause X, you'd get an infestation of right wing fuckwits. If it was about Y, you got the left wing fuckwits.
They never seemed to need much emboldening.
Hopefully the people running the pro-Palestine demo this weekend are accepting advice - otherwise they will get a nasty case of Black Blok types and Religious Fascists. Shame that we can't pen those beauties up with the EDL in an amphitheatre and get pop corn....
In the demos I go the Met make sure the fash are safe to scream and shout and literally do "Roman salutes" and push back local activists who want them out of their neighbourhood with batons; working with the cops doesn't necessarily protect you from the fascists, especially if their only advice is "well, don't do the protest and the fash won't show up".
Out of interest, why are you going on fascist demos?
Looking for fashion tips?
I'm thinking the use of a Bergman is far more classy than an MP40, but the medallioned tassels are not well coordinated with the magazine pouches.
What's the pistol the chap with the boom box is using? Seems to be toggling, so a P08?
Looks more like a P38 to me.
Unusual to see a MP 18 - it's not a Lanchester by the look of it either.
I am now considering going on this march on Saturday.
I wouldn't have remotely considered it, if it hadn't been for Braverman. But I think she has turned it into a question of principle.
Fine but be aware Tommy Robinson's EDL are turning up at the same time so it may not be an entirely peaceful afternoon
Yeah, and I wonder why they feel emboldened to? Is it because politicians in government / the governing party, along with the right wing press, have blown the pro-Palestinian marches out of such proportion that they feel like they will be heroes for doing so - deputising themselves to do what the "woke" Met won't?
Back when I was helping to run student demos. the same kind of people would infest your demo, if you didn't accept the help of the police in weeding them out. If the demo was about cause X, you'd get an infestation of right wing fuckwits. If it was about Y, you got the left wing fuckwits.
They never seemed to need much emboldening.
Hopefully the people running the pro-Palestine demo this weekend are accepting advice - otherwise they will get a nasty case of Black Blok types and Religious Fascists. Shame that we can't pen those beauties up with the EDL in an amphitheatre and get pop corn....
In the demos I go the Met make sure the fash are safe to scream and shout and literally do "Roman salutes" and push back local activists who want them out of their neighbourhood with batons; working with the cops doesn't necessarily protect you from the fascists, especially if their only advice is "well, don't do the protest and the fash won't show up".
Out of interest, why are you going on fascist demos?
Looking for fashion tips?
I'm thinking the use of a Bergman is far more classy than an MP40, but the medallioned tassels are not well coordinated with the magazine pouches.
What's the pistol the chap with the boom box is using? Seems to be toggling, so a P08?
Looks more like a P38 to me.
Unusual to see a MP 18 - it's not a Lanchester by the look of it either.
Former minister tells me: “Either she goes today or Sunday/Monday. First, it’s the insubordination, Second is the ministerial code. Everybody’s livid, there’s a lot of messaging of the chief whip saying enough is enough”
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
Exclusive: Sunak’s team has held talks this week about a Cabinet reshuffle, multiple sources say
— Oliver Dowden met with No10 for discussions
— some in govt pushing for it to be brought forward to as soon as next week
— No10, Dowden decline to comment
So he’ll try and reshuffle Braverman out of the Home Office, she’ll say no, he’ll be forced to sack her, she’ll run immediately to the media telling them how he didn’t have the guts to support her. Very predictable.
And she ends up the darling of the Tory membership, who Sunak can't afford to alienate too much given they never voted for him to be leader anyway
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
My Dad was born in 1946, so he's 77, but still going strong. My daughter, currently one of five grandchildren, is 21. If my Dad lives as long as his Dad, then my daughter will be in her 40s before she can hope to inherit anything from him. Asking people to wait for an inheritance isn't going to do much good for them.
Depends how you manage your finances. My parents passed me cash quite early and Ive done the same to my kids.
BUT are you still selfishly hogging the family furniture, to the detriment and discomfort of your heirs?
That would be my wife. She's a hoarder Im a minimalist.
Did you just throw Mrs A. under the heirloom tea trolley?
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
Until the 1990s however 90% of the population didn't go to university at all, so free university education only benefited the elite anyway.
Until the 1980s most people rented as well, only in the last few decades have most owned their own homes, helped by right to buy of course
Nonsense. Quite a few working class and poorer middle class people got to university that way pre-1990s. I sure did. Really pissed off the conservative elite who think they should be the only ones who go to uni, as you demonstrate still.
They may have done but only because they were academic enough to be in the top 10% and enter the elite who were deemed suitable of a university education and then largely entered the professions (as they still do today, the number of top professional jobs hasn't expanded much beyond the levels of the 1980s even if the number of graduates has)
But they weren't the elite to begin with. That's the whole point.
PS And if you are going to cram every single schoolteacher, for instance, into the 'elite' of 1989, then that is getting thoroughly muddled.
So, they were still the academic elite. You only used to need a degree to be a doctor or surgeon, lawyer, Professor, senior engineer or top civil servant or a member of the clergy or secondary school teacher. Taxpayers could afford to pay for that.
Now you need a degree even to be a middle manager or police officer or primary school teacher or to be a nurse with all the fees to match.
But those were still provided by the taxpayer. They were vcalled polytechnics or nursing bursaries or police cadet training.
Done on the job when earning a wage, without debt and without living costs to subsidise too, certainly for the latter
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Agreed.
Much of US media (and ours too) has developed a bad habit of headlining any story about Trump with a direct quote of his latest incendiary (and usually mendacious) statement. It's like they've taken on the role of unpaid PR agency.
The BBC's US reporting tends to adopt this mode, too.
Yes that's what I mean. Just calm down and lay out what's likely to happen if he gets back in. And if enough Americans are cool with that, so be it.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
34% thinking it *is" a lifestyle choice is actually quite a lot of people (far more than currently say they would vote Conservative).
And this, again, is why she is building herself a powerful brand (even if I disagree and even am concerned with a lot of it).
She is saying controversial things because her brand is that she is the only person in UK politics who is tough enough and honest enough to say them. It is all very Trumpian - dislike me all you like but I will at least say this stuff. Others won’t. They’re part of the Swamp/Blob.
This is going to cut through in a big way with the Tory membership, I fear, if she gets that far. And if she were to make it to LOTO, I don’t think anyone can afford to be complacent about her. I see a lot of complacency on here - she’s been a useless HS, nasty, mean spirited, incompetent, dangerous. All these things may be true, but they dont preclude someone from winning an election in the West, nowadays.
Her problem is that her positioning is pure GB News. I suspect she exists in such a silo that she thinks all that is mainstream. There was a hint with the 'homelessness in tents' stuff - that's a massive political totem in the US, but completely niche to non-existent over here. This suggests she's consuming the politics of right-wing American think tanks more than being alert to the concerns of the British public. Quite a scary situation.
But again, just because her positioning may not be in the political mainstream doesn’t mean that her shtick can’t be popular. Indeed, the point is that it is outside the political mainstream - i.e other politicians won’t do this but I will. I don’t think everyone who votes for Trump is completely down with everything he says and pledges (depressingly a good number are!), but they’re down with enough that the bits they find extreme or unappealing don’t matter to them.
The polling that prompted the article lead for our discussion, however, suggests her view here is not popular with the electorate at large.
No, you’re right - although 36% is a lot better than what the Tories are polling currently as has been pointed out on here - but my point was that not every point she makes is going to necessarily be in tune with 50%+1 of the electorate. But the offering generally could be in tune with enough people that she becomes a political force in her own right.
The point again - you don’t have to agree with everything a politician says to be inclined to vote for them.
Yes, you can have some individually unpopular policies while still being popular overall. However, I recall some previous polling the last time Braverman said something outrageous that looked the same as this. I don't see any evidence that Braverman as a general offering is popular with the electorate. (With Tory party members, maybe, but they're not the electorate.)
Maybe. It’s entirely plausible that she fails to become leader, or becomes leader and crashes and burns. My feeling is though, that she shouldn’t be underestimated.
No-one should be underestimated. No-one should be overestimated! Braverman may become leader by virtue of that role being chosen by the membership, not the general electorate. It's possible, although I think unlikely, that that happens before a general election and then she becomes the 4th Conservative female PM. It's more likely that that happens after a general election defeat. I'm not suggesting laying Braverman in the betting for next leader or next PM.
But I think the evidence, to date, is that her style and policies do not have widespread support in the electorate. In the Daily Mail comments section, maybe, but I don't see her leading the Tories to election victories.
Point is, us being a betting site, that she's 7/1 for next Con leader. So is this under or over estimating her?
Former minister tells me: “Either she goes today or Sunday/Monday. First, it’s the insubordination, Second is the ministerial code. Everybody’s livid, there’s a lot of messaging of the chief whip saying enough is enough”
Why can she not go on Friday or Saturday?
If she goes today or tomorrow I needn't go on the march!
Former home sec @pritipatel at Covid inquiry “Throughout the pandemic I felt I spent great deal of time reminding my colleagues of the role of policing...& also operational independence, & that we as politicians not there to dictate directly to police as 2 when 2 arrest people https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1722629351064367435
There are quite a few shades of not cleared. Number 10 could have asked for copy edits, and Suella could have made edits in response, but not submitted the final copy before sending.
Exclusive: Sunak’s team has held talks this week about a Cabinet reshuffle, multiple sources say
— Oliver Dowden met with No10 for discussions
— some in govt pushing for it to be brought forward to as soon as next week
— No10, Dowden decline to comment
If that's correct, and Braverman suspected she was going to be shuffled, then mebbe this was all an ante-raising pre-emptive strike. But, who knows?
If she does get moved, or leaves altogether, my guess would be Kemi Badenoch to the Home Office. Could be the making or breaking of her and likely lead to Suella being eclipsed and even forgotten about. But again, who knows?
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
Until the 1990s however 90% of the population didn't go to university at all, so free university education only benefited the elite anyway.
Until the 1980s most people rented as well, only in the last few decades have most owned their own homes, helped by right to buy of course
Nonsense. Quite a few working class and poorer middle class people got to university that way pre-1990s. I sure did. Really pissed off the conservative elite who think they should be the only ones who go to uni, as you demonstrate still.
They may have done but only because they were academic enough to be in the top 10% and enter the elite who were deemed suitable of a university education and then largely entered the professions (as they still do today, the number of top professional jobs hasn't expanded much beyond the levels of the 1980s even if the number of graduates has)
But they weren't the elite to begin with. That's the whole point.
PS And if you are going to cram every single schoolteacher, for instance, into the 'elite' of 1989, then that is getting thoroughly muddled.
So, they were still the academic elite. You only used to need a degree to be a doctor or surgeon, lawyer, Professor, senior engineer or top civil servant or a member of the clergy or secondary school teacher. Taxpayers could afford to pay for that.
Now you need a degree even to be a middle manager or police officer or primary school teacher or to be a nurse with all the fees to match.
But those were still provided by the taxpayer. They were vcalled polytechnics or nursing bursaries or police cadet training.
Done on the job when earning a wage, without debt and without living costs to subsidise too, certainly for the latter
Ever heard of police houses? And I said nursing bursaries not salaries. Plus they had nurses' homes. And so on and so forth.
Trump back in the White House, Clinton said during an appearance on ABC’s daytime talkshow The View on Wednesday, “would be the end of our country as we know it, and I don’t say that lightly”.
Is the USA not coming to an inflection point regardless of who is in the White House?
Trump back in the White House, Clinton said during an appearance on ABC’s daytime talkshow The View on Wednesday, “would be the end of our country as we know it, and I don’t say that lightly”.
Is the USA not coming to an inflection point regardless of who is in the White House?
That inlexion point might be getting rid of all the zimmerframers and having people who arent nuts as politicians.
"I think I have found a genuine story in @NadineDorries's book, The Plot, out today. It concerns manoeuvrings to get the “right” person in to chair the supposedly independent media regulator, @ofcom (thread) (1/9 )
"Dorries describes a meeting in which @RobbieGibb , former comms director for Theresa May and a BBC director, tried to persuade her to appoint Lord Stephen Gilbert, “a party apparatchik” to chair Ofcom (2/9)
"Dorries thought Michael Grade was infinitely more qualified. But she was lobbied by past and present Number 10 operatives – including a “bullying” call from Douglas Smith – to back Gilbert, not Grade. (3/9)
"Dorries nevertheless wrote Johnson a note for his red box recommending Grade. She writes; “Astonishingly, during the night my advice note to the PM was changed in his red box and placed with one recommending Gilbert.” (4/9)
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
You were the one arguing Starmer would be no help.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
You were the one arguing Starmer would be no help.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
Until the 1990s however 90% of the population didn't go to university at all, so free university education only benefited the elite anyway.
Until the 1980s most people rented as well, only in the last few decades have most owned their own homes, helped by right to buy of course
Nonsense. Quite a few working class and poorer middle class people got to university that way pre-1990s. I sure did. Really pissed off the conservative elite who think they should be the only ones who go to uni, as you demonstrate still.
They may have done but only because they were academic enough to be in the top 10% and enter the elite who were deemed suitable of a university education and then largely entered the professions (as they still do today, the number of top professional jobs hasn't expanded much beyond the levels of the 1980s even if the number of graduates has)
But they weren't the elite to begin with. That's the whole point.
PS And if you are going to cram every single schoolteacher, for instance, into the 'elite' of 1989, then that is getting thoroughly muddled.
So, they were still the academic elite. You only used to need a degree to be a doctor or surgeon, lawyer, Professor, senior engineer or top civil servant or a member of the clergy or secondary school teacher. Taxpayers could afford to pay for that.
Now you need a degree even to be a middle manager or police officer or primary school teacher or to be a nurse with all the fees to match.
But those were still provided by the taxpayer. They were vcalled polytechnics or nursing bursaries or police cadet training.
Done on the job when earning a wage, without debt and without living costs to subsidise too, certainly for the latter
Ever heard of police houses? And I said nursing bursaries not salaries. Plus they had nurses' homes. And so on and so forth.
Most police have their own houses and police houses when training would be subsidised by the police service from their funds not as an add on extra of further funds from taxpayers, same with nurses.
Nursing bursaries went to nurses already training on the wards, not in a university
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
Seattle Times ($) - Six weeks into Tacoma officers’ trial, stark differences in police and eyewitness accounts
TACOMA – “It’s going to depend on whose version of events the jury adopts.”
Those words Wednesday, from police use of force expert John Ryan, succinctly summed up the first six weeks of testimony in the trial of three Tacoma police officers charged in the death of Manuel Ellis. . . .
The trial, which is expected to last another month, will continue Monday with the defense likely to call its first witnesses.
Jurors have heard stark differences between officers’ and eyewitnesses’ accounts of what triggered the interaction that resulted in Ellis’ death.
Civilian witnesses who watched and filmed the struggle between Ellis and officers point to the police as the aggressors. Officers’ statements, made to detectives months before those cell phone videos surfaced, maintain that Ellis violently attacked them and it was necessary to use the level of force they did to subdue him.
Ellis, 33, died March 3, 2020, after Tacoma police say they saw him trying to enter a passing car in an intersection, leading to a struggle. Ellis repeatedly said he could not breathe while officers continued to apply force. The Pierce County Medical Examiner ruled Ellis’ death a homicide due to physical restraint. Lawyers for the officers claim Ellis died from the high level of methamphetamine in his system coupled with an underlying heart condition.
Tacoma police officers Matthew Collins, 40, and Christopher “Shane” Burbank, 38, are charged with second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter. Officer Timothy Rankine, 34, is charged with first-degree manslaughter. . . .
Collins and Burbank were the first to contact Ellis and were recorded on cell phone videos by witnesses. Three witnesses testified Ellis was walking away from a police cruiser when he appeared to be summoned to the vehicle. Once he reached it, the passenger’s door, where Burbank sat, flew open, knocking Ellis to the ground and triggering the violent subdual of Ellis that all three witnesses described as unprovoked.
The witness videos show Collins wrapping his arm around Ellis’ neck, striking Ellis repeatedly, slamming him to the ground and placing a knee near the base of Ellis’ neck while he was prone on the ground. Burbank can be seen jolting Ellis three times with a Taser, including once with his arms raised in what an expert witness described as a “submissive” pose. . . .
Collins told detectives days after Ellis’ death that the struggle started when Ellis lifted him off the ground and threw him through the air to land on his back. None of the eyewitnesses saw that happen. Even Burbank, who was Collins’ partner that night, told detectives he slammed the door into Ellis because he was concerned Ellis might be preparing to attack Collins – not that he had. . . .
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
You are projecting so much, that that you are lighting up the clouds.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
Until the 1990s however 90% of the population didn't go to university at all, so free university education only benefited the elite anyway.
Until the 1980s most people rented as well, only in the last few decades have most owned their own homes, helped by right to buy of course
Nonsense. Quite a few working class and poorer middle class people got to university that way pre-1990s. I sure did. Really pissed off the conservative elite who think they should be the only ones who go to uni, as you demonstrate still.
They may have done but only because they were academic enough to be in the top 10% and enter the elite who were deemed suitable of a university education and then largely entered the professions (as they still do today, the number of top professional jobs hasn't expanded much beyond the levels of the 1980s even if the number of graduates has)
But they weren't the elite to begin with. That's the whole point.
PS And if you are going to cram every single schoolteacher, for instance, into the 'elite' of 1989, then that is getting thoroughly muddled.
So, they were still the academic elite. You only used to need a degree to be a doctor or surgeon, lawyer, Professor, senior engineer or top civil servant or a member of the clergy or secondary school teacher. Taxpayers could afford to pay for that.
Now you need a degree even to be a middle manager or police officer or primary school teacher or to be a nurse with all the fees to match.
But those were still provided by the taxpayer. They were vcalled polytechnics or nursing bursaries or police cadet training.
Done on the job when earning a wage, without debt and without living costs to subsidise too, certainly for the latter
Ever heard of police houses? And I said nursing bursaries not salaries. Plus they had nurses' homes. And so on and so forth.
Your turn on the 'arguing with HYUFD' rota today, Carnyx? Commiserations!
"I think I have found a genuine story in @NadineDorries's book, The Plot, out today. It concerns manoeuvrings to get the “right” person in to chair the supposedly independent media regulator, @ofcom (thread) (1/9 )
"Dorries describes a meeting in which @RobbieGibb , former comms director for Theresa May and a BBC director, tried to persuade her to appoint Lord Stephen Gilbert, “a party apparatchik” to chair Ofcom (2/9)
"Dorries thought Michael Grade was infinitely more qualified. But she was lobbied by past and present Number 10 operatives – including a “bullying” call from Douglas Smith – to back Gilbert, not Grade. (3/9)
"Dorries nevertheless wrote Johnson a note for his red box recommending Grade. She writes; “Astonishingly, during the night my advice note to the PM was changed in his red box and placed with one recommending Gilbert.” (4/9)
YM covered this one in their Jobs for the boys episode
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
You were the one arguing Starmer would be no help.
He wont. but Kinabalu is the one saying he can take me back to my wondrous youth when we built 400k houses a year for a a much smaller population.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
Until the 1990s however 90% of the population didn't go to university at all, so free university education only benefited the elite anyway.
Until the 1980s most people rented as well, only in the last few decades have most owned their own homes, helped by right to buy of course
Nonsense. Quite a few working class and poorer middle class people got to university that way pre-1990s. I sure did. Really pissed off the conservative elite who think they should be the only ones who go to uni, as you demonstrate still.
They may have done but only because they were academic enough to be in the top 10% and enter the elite who were deemed suitable of a university education and then largely entered the professions (as they still do today, the number of top professional jobs hasn't expanded much beyond the levels of the 1980s even if the number of graduates has)
But they weren't the elite to begin with. That's the whole point.
PS And if you are going to cram every single schoolteacher, for instance, into the 'elite' of 1989, then that is getting thoroughly muddled.
So, they were still the academic elite. You only used to need a degree to be a doctor or surgeon, lawyer, Professor, senior engineer or top civil servant or a member of the clergy or secondary school teacher. Taxpayers could afford to pay for that.
Now you need a degree even to be a middle manager or police officer or primary school teacher or to be a nurse with all the fees to match.
But those were still provided by the taxpayer. They were vcalled polytechnics or nursing bursaries or police cadet training.
Done on the job when earning a wage, without debt and without living costs to subsidise too, certainly for the latter
Ever heard of police houses? And I said nursing bursaries not salaries. Plus they had nurses' homes. And so on and so forth.
Your turn on the 'arguing with HYUFD' rota today, Carnyx? Commiserations!
Made the point sufficiently now, I think, to get on with other things!
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I dont want to see Trump or Biden as POTUS but currently thats not looking like an option. But I am more relaxed than you since most of the fear mongering is ridiculous and gives him credibility he shouldnt have. We have already seen what he's like in office, he huffs he puffs then goes off to a mirrot to ask who's the fairest of them all.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Exclusive: Sunak’s team has held talks this week about a Cabinet reshuffle, multiple sources say
— Oliver Dowden met with No10 for discussions
— some in govt pushing for it to be brought forward to as soon as next week
— No10, Dowden decline to comment
If that's correct, and Braverman suspected she was going to be shuffled, then mebbe this was all an ante-raising pre-emptive strike. But, who knows?
If she does get moved, or leaves altogether, my guess would be Kemi Badenoch to the Home Office. Could be the making or breaking of her and likely lead to Suella being eclipsed and even forgotten about. But again, who knows?
Oh god, if Badenoch ends up in the Home Office the next leadership contest is going to be her and Braverman arguing who was the toughest HS. It will be painful.
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
The question is, should she be sent to Rwanda or Albania?
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
Rishi doesn’t want her out of the tent because she might say some mean horrid things about him to her ERG mates.
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
The question is, should she be sent to Rwanda or Albania?
I think Coventry would be the better option for the party.
"I think I have found a genuine story in @NadineDorries's book, The Plot, out today. It concerns manoeuvrings to get the “right” person in to chair the supposedly independent media regulator, @ofcom (thread) (1/9 )
"Dorries describes a meeting in which @RobbieGibb , former comms director for Theresa May and a BBC director, tried to persuade her to appoint Lord Stephen Gilbert, “a party apparatchik” to chair Ofcom (2/9)
"Dorries thought Michael Grade was infinitely more qualified. But she was lobbied by past and present Number 10 operatives – including a “bullying” call from Douglas Smith – to back Gilbert, not Grade. (3/9)
"Dorries nevertheless wrote Johnson a note for his red box recommending Grade. She writes; “Astonishingly, during the night my advice note to the PM was changed in his red box and placed with one recommending Gilbert.” (4/9)
I'm going to go out on a limb here.
It isn't true.
Believing Dorries on any given point would be like uncritically accepting the views of David Irving. Very stupid and likely to have embarrassing results.
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
The question is, should she be sent to Rwanda or Albania?
I think Coventry would be the better option for the party.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I dont want to see Trump or Biden as POTUS but currently thats not looking like an option. But I am more relaxed than you since most of the fear mongering is ridiculous and gives him credibility he shouldnt have. We have already seen what he's like in office, he huffs he puffs then goes off to a mirrot to ask who's the fairest of them all.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Would that be scarier ?
Or what about President Trump after changing the constitution to run for a 3rd term, welcomes newly elected UK PM Suella Braverman to a state dinner at the White House, as they jointly promise a 'crusade against wokeism' as Thatcher and Reagan fought communism. Scarier still?
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
The question is, should she be sent to Rwanda or Albania?
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I dont want to see Trump or Biden as POTUS but currently thats not looking like an option. But I am more relaxed than you since most of the fear mongering is ridiculous and gives him credibility he shouldnt have. We have already seen what he's like in office, he huffs he puffs then goes off to a mirrot to ask who's the fairest of them all.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Would that be scarier ?
Or what about President Trump after changing the constitution to run for a 3rd term, welcomes newly elected UK PM Suella Braverman to a state dinner at the White House, as they jointly promise a 'crusade against wokeism' as Thatcher and Reagan fought communism. Scarier still?
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
We can discuss how long it takes to sack her and how every day makes the prime minister seem so much weaker.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
You are projecting so much, that that you are lighting up the clouds.
I'm just getting a bit tired of all this 'no enthusiasm for Starmer' and 'won't change anything' business. It's the people doing that who are projecting. They're projecting a 'seen it, done it, got the tee shirt' worldly wise cynicism that's actually imo a teeny bit sterile and self-regarding. Either that or they're sulked up Corbynites pissed off about that whole episode passing into history or they're True Blue Tories being churlish about the certainty of losing and so they're going to stop playing and take their ball home.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I dont want to see Trump or Biden as POTUS but currently thats not looking like an option. But I am more relaxed than you since most of the fear mongering is ridiculous and gives him credibility he shouldnt have. We have already seen what he's like in office, he huffs he puffs then goes off to a mirrot to ask who's the fairest of them all.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Would that be scarier ?
Or what about President Trump after changing the constitution to run for a 3rd term, welcomes newly elected UK PM Suella Braverman to a state dinner at the White House, as they jointly promise a 'crusade against wokeism' as Thatcher and Reagan fought communism. Scarier still?
No because the best horror has a basis in reality. There is no way he would get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States to change the Constitution.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
You are projecting so much, that that you are lighting up the clouds.
I'm just getting a bit tired of all this 'no enthusiasm for Starmer' and 'won't change anything' business. It's the people doing that who are projecting. They're projecting a 'seen it, done it, got the tee shirt' worldly wise cynicism that's actually imo a teeny bit sterile and self-regarding. Either that or they're sulked up Corbynites pissed off about that whole episode passing into history or they're True Blue Tories being churlish about the certainty of losing and effectively saying they're going to stop playing and take their ball home.
Well he's as grey as John Major.
It will be the Cones website in office and when he's gone we'll discover hes been nobbing Emily Thornberry.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I dont want to see Trump or Biden as POTUS but currently thats not looking like an option. But I am more relaxed than you since most of the fear mongering is ridiculous and gives him credibility he shouldnt have. We have already seen what he's like in office, he huffs he puffs then goes off to a mirrot to ask who's the fairest of them all.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Would that be scarier ?
Trump did more than huff'n' puff. He increased the national debt by $7.8 trillion. He appointed three Supreme Court justices, radically changing the Court's composition, and one of whom is probably guilty of sexual assault. He saw abortion made illegal in vast swathes of the country. He was impeached twice. He tried to overthrow the election result. He impeded the country's pandemic response, so that could be ~400,000 extra deaths because of his administration.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I dont want to see Trump or Biden as POTUS but currently thats not looking like an option. But I am more relaxed than you since most of the fear mongering is ridiculous and gives him credibility he shouldnt have. We have already seen what he's like in office, he huffs he puffs then goes off to a mirrot to ask who's the fairest of them all.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Would that be scarier ?
Or what about President Trump after changing the constitution to run for a 3rd term, welcomes newly elected UK PM Suella Braverman to a state dinner at the White House, as they jointly promise a 'crusade against wokeism' as Thatcher and Reagan fought communism. Scarier still?
No because the best horror has a basis in reality. There is no way he would get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States to change the Constitution.
He could try an Oliver Cromwell and remove half of Congress and create a 'rump Congress' of loyalists and then replace half the state legislatures as well. Albeit he would need the army on board too as Cromwell had his New Model Army
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
We can discuss how long it takes to sack her and how every day makes the prime minister seem so much weaker.
This is coming tonight. It must be a matter of them meeting, or something. Surely.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
You are projecting so much, that that you are lighting up the clouds.
I'm just getting a bit tired of all this 'no enthusiasm for Starmer' and 'won't change anything' business. It's the people doing that who are projecting. They're projecting a 'seen it, done it, got the tee shirt' worldly wise cynicism that's actually imo a teeny bit sterile and self-regarding. Either that or they're sulked up Corbynites pissed off about that whole episode passing into history or they're True Blue Tories being churlish about the certainty of losing and effectively saying they're going to stop playing and take their ball home.
All the actual evidence of Starmer, so far, speaks to a deeply establishment managerial type.
Swashbuckling his way through the vested interests is not something he has ever done. His career has been about applying the process to the task.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
You are projecting so much, that that you are lighting up the clouds.
I'm just getting a bit tired of all this 'no enthusiasm for Starmer' and 'won't change anything' business. It's the people doing that who are projecting. They're projecting a 'seen it, done it, got the tee shirt' worldly wise cynicism that's actually imo a teeny bit sterile and self-regarding. Either that or they're sulked up Corbynites pissed off about that whole episode passing into history or they're True Blue Tories being churlish about the certainty of losing and effectively saying they're going to stop playing and take their ball home.
You're suggesting that some of the posts here may contain Tory propaganda??
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
We can discuss how long it takes to sack her and how every day makes the prime minister seem so much weaker.
This is coming tonight. It must be a matter of them meeting, or something. Surely.
I do wonder if yet another example of the continual pandering to the 'Should be in the Lib Dem' wing of the PCP might result in Brady reaching the threshold....
There once was a ship that put to sea The name of the ship was Nadine O'Dea The party blew up, the polls dipped down Oh blow, my mean girls, blow (huh)
Soon may the Braverman come To stop the boats and tents and fun One day, when Brexit is done We'll take our Leave and go
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
We can discuss how long it takes to sack her and how every day makes the prime minister seem so much weaker.
This is coming tonight. It must be a matter of them meeting, or something. Surely.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
You are projecting so much, that that you are lighting up the clouds.
I'm just getting a bit tired of all this 'no enthusiasm for Starmer' and 'won't change anything' business. It's the people doing that who are projecting. They're projecting a 'seen it, done it, got the tee shirt' worldly wise cynicism that's actually imo a teeny bit sterile and self-regarding. Either that or they're sulked up Corbynites pissed off about that whole episode passing into history or they're True Blue Tories being churlish about the certainty of losing and effectively saying they're going to stop playing and take their ball home.
You're suggesting that some of the posts here may contain Tory propaganda??
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
We can discuss how long it takes to sack her and how every day makes the prime minister seem so much weaker.
This is coming tonight. It must be a matter of them meeting, or something. Surely.
You think? I dunno.
If it happens, we're a step closer to a lesser known MP from Norfolk becoming leader of the Tory party (again....)
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
I do wonder if people underestimate the desire for strongman politics - that indeed the idea that Trump will come in and ignore Congress or the Courts may be a selling point, not a negative. Democrats need to discuss why Trumps authoritarian tendencies are bad, not assume voters will just accept that - when voters may instead see strength and conviction.
Autocracy is a younger person thing, oldies have more sense.
I mean, I can understand why (in some ways) - if politics isn't changing, and isn't meeting your needs (which it clearly isn't for people in their mid 30s and under) then autocracy of either political persuasions have their allure. I would argue that oldies don't have more sense - they have just historically, and currently, had their interests served well by democratically elected governments.
In the US, specifically, it's key to note that Congressional approval is at net -65%, SCOTUS has record low approval at net -17%. Joe Biden is there with SCOTUS, at around -17% net approval, and Trump is the most popular with an astronomical -14% net approval. The most popular sitting politician in the US is... Bernie Sanders, with a net 36% approval rating (which is interesting considering he is also very well known, not something you can say about the other contenders for most popular senator, if anything name recognition tracks with a higher disapproval rating, and you'd think someone who ran twice as a Democrat for POTUS would have the typical partisan effect)
Nonsense oldies just have more life experience. Weve been through the cycle of this time its different ( rarely is ), project fear version 2 million ( were still alive ) and the back and forth of social trends.
The younger generations dont get is as you get older you have less hours on the planet so you value those you have left and dont waste time on things you have seen fail many times before.
Older people have had all the benefits of the post war consensus, and that ladder has slowly been hauled up behind them. I love my grandparents dearly, but after the war their economic prospects (as working class people) were significantly better than mine (a university graduate). The house they bought for a £9,000 mortgage in the 60s in now worth nearly half a million; my parents managed to get a house for £55k in the 90s - it is now worth over £300k. Free university education, investment in healthcare and education, decent pensions (that are now protected under the triple lock). We are sliding backwards, and young people aren't blind to that. All evidence shows that this generation is going to be economically worse of than their parents, and we feel it.
You might be sliding backwards but you keep voting for people who will put you there. As for housing when your parents die I assume its not all going to the cats home so who will be the beneficaries of a big lump sum?
I'm 32, my dad is in his early 50s (my mum is already dead). So, like, maybe in 30-35 years I'll have something to inherit, as long as the housing market bubble doesn't explode? Yay.
And I don't keep voting for people who put me there - that would be Tory voters who vote for politicians and policies that make it harder for younger people and easier for older and wealthy people. Whether it's the environment or the economy - the Tory party can't be trusted with the future. Unfortunately the next Labour government doesn't look much better...
Having lived through the recent past longer than you the whole nobody can afford to live nonsense started in in the late nineties with the so called Third Way kicked off. This started with the news that the government can solve all our problems rather than leaving us to sort our own lives out. It worked in the post cold war environment while we had a peace dividend to spend. But then the money ran out and we started to borrow, we passed more and more laws thus restricting the simple things in life - like building a house - and capitalism became corporatism where its who you know not what you know that counts. Both Conservatives and Labour are signed up to this, so we wont see much changes until one of them comes to their senses. Starmer is a north London lawyer so I cant see him rocking the boat, the Tories might come to their senses after a heavy defeat or lose of heavily they no longer exist.
Building a house is one of the simple things in life? Respect.
It was when I was growimg up. You didnt have armies of nimbies with the right to stop or delay building through planning appeals. Anyway isnt your Mr Starmer agreeing with me ? Or have you given up on him ?
Yes he seems to be majoring on that. I think he'll deliver on it personally. Vested interests and inertia are formidable foes but he's a tough nut. Far more so than (eg) Blair. This time there won't be that 'oh god we've won' sense of light-headedness, it'll be all business from day one. I think Starmer pretty much is the PM already in his head. In a good way, I mean, not as in feeling complacent. He doesn't feel complacent he feels ready.
You are projecting so much, that that you are lighting up the clouds.
I'm just getting a bit tired of all this 'no enthusiasm for Starmer' and 'won't change anything' business. It's the people doing that who are projecting. They're projecting a 'seen it, done it, got the tee shirt' worldly wise cynicism that's actually imo a teeny bit sterile and self-regarding. Either that or they're sulked up Corbynites pissed off about that whole episode passing into history or they're True Blue Tories being churlish about the certainty of losing and so they're going to stop playing and take their ball home.
I don’t think there’s tremendous enthusiasm for Starmer but I don’t think there needs to be. Similarly I don’t think he’ll be overly radical, but maybe a change of personnel and some fresh impetus can put us on a better track for a bit.
He probably isn’t going to address all of the deep structural issues that the country faces at the moment, but he’s a damn sight better than the current shower, so yes he deserves a go.
I would like him to be a little bolder, because I think he has more political capital to spend then he realises, but I get that the Labour Party is scarred from losing so many elections.
The leader of the SDLP commented "She has managed to offend just about everyone – no mean feat in a divided society."
Not quite true, as the report says she was defended by Ian Paisley. I must admit I thought he was dead.
Paisley Jnr
Thank you. As ever, I am in awe of your omniscience.
He's been an MP for "only" 13 years...
... and 12 years in the Assembly.
His tenure as an MP is perhaps most notable for his being the first MP to face a recall petition and, to date, the only to survive a recall petition.
There's an article about him in the Latin Wikipedia: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioannes_Paisley_iunior Although it's not very long... Ioannes Paisley iunior (Ian Paisley junior; natus in urbe Belfast die 12 Decembris 1966) est rerum politicarum peritus Hiberniae Septentrionalis, socius Factionis Unionistarum Democraticae a patre (Ioanne seniore conditae. Est legatus apud Parlamentum Regni Britanniarum a die 6 Maii 2010 pro circulo North Antrim, patri successor.
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
Rishi doesn’t want her out of the tent because she might say some mean horrid things about him to her ERG mates.
I think this will be focused on more as the election gets nearer and it will start to show in the polls. Trump's numbers will slide as the idea of him back in the WH becomes less of a 'lol can you imagine!' hypothetical prospect and more of an 'am I truly up for that?' pressing actual question.
Were simply getting in to election nonsense. Mrs gaga is getting in on the act too.
But the dem media keep pumping Trump so I struggle to sympathise, they need him. However keeping him front of voters minds might be a stupid play.
He is a creature of the media. Right from The Apprentice. That beamed him into millions of homes primetime every week for years as this savvy no bullshit operator who could get things done. Fed into the 'businessman not a politician' shit that a certain sort of gullible pleb seems to lap up. It's a type of forelocking really although they fail to recognize that's what they're doing. The Apprentice was extremely important to his arc of assent imo. No Apprentice, no President Trump.
But anyway that's the point. To stop covering him as a reality tv star and instead start to calmly and repeatedly lay out the threat he poses, based on the record of what he's done and what he's said, hyperbole not required. Stop searching for balance and context, for equivalences with the other side (there aren't any), just do what he and his ilk on the populist right are always (mendaciously) claiming that they do - 'tell it like it is'.
How are they going to do that ? If they paint him as a demon it just plays to his victim narcissism. Likewise many of the claims made just are not true and the electorate can see that. He didnt kill democracy, he didnt crash the economy he didnt start world war 3 when he was President.
He is like a spoilt two years old and the best thing to do is ignore him. Having some credible policies might also help.
This is exactly the issue. He paints the media who call him out as partial and fake news and it just whips up his base even more.
There was an argument that the media should have been better at calling out his s**t when he was first running for president rather than the “both sides” equivalency but that time has long gone.
Really the only way to reduce his impact is to ignore him. Something media outlets are desperate to avoid because he actually generates a lot of drama for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Ignoring him is the impossible dream sadly - he's the GOP frontrunner and the betting fav for next president. So it's about *how* he's covered.
Yes but theres no need to roll the turd in glitter, just make it mundane.
It could be we mean the same thing, I'm not sure. I doubt it because you are chilled about him coming back - thus by definition you don't see the prospect as being particularly dangerous or harmful. Beats me how anyone paying attention could feel that way but there you go, I accept that you see the same things as me, broadly speaking, and yet you do feel that way.
I dont want to see Trump or Biden as POTUS but currently thats not looking like an option. But I am more relaxed than you since most of the fear mongering is ridiculous and gives him credibility he shouldnt have. We have already seen what he's like in office, he huffs he puffs then goes off to a mirrot to ask who's the fairest of them all.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Would that be scarier ?
Notwithstanding Trump was in general a disastrously divisive POTUS, his term culminated in an attempt to subvert both democracy and the Constitution. He won't make the error of failing to overturn a free and fair election in January 2021 at the second time of asking.
However much hyperbole Is spoken it won't begin to describe the danger Trump poses to America and it's allies.
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
The question is, should she be sent to Rwanda or Albania?
South Shetlands, shirley?
Where she could experience for herself the joys of the rough camping lifestyle!
AND monitor Arctic cruise ships to ensure that unsavory foreigners do NOT smuggle themselves ashore.
BBC headline is that No 10 "disowns" Braverman's article. An article by the Home Secretary about the police. Apparently she did not make the changes that they had asked for. What is there left to discuss?
We can discuss how long it takes to sack her and how every day makes the prime minister seem so much weaker.
This is coming tonight. It must be a matter of them meeting, or something. Surely.
You think? I dunno.
I agree. I’m not convinced he’s going to let her go.
Just you watch - a SLD surge brings me reluctantly to Westminster. Being an MP is all about drunken debauchery, yes?
If we have a competition to produce the most misleading graph, will you promise to publish the best one on your campaign literature?
Not selected yet. But sounds like a short list of one. I assume I will get a postal leaflet and thats likely it. And I will get to stand on a stage with David Duguid! Which is nice.
Comments
(Assuming the story is true.)
Sunak has left it too late. When she does go, he looks weak and Lab claim victory
What is that piece of film, BTW, please?
Former minister tells me: “Either she goes today or Sunday/Monday. First, it’s the insubordination, Second is the ministerial code. Everybody’s livid, there’s a lot of messaging of the chief whip saying enough is enough”
It's one of the party's founders, not their current leader. He's alive and conscious in hospital.
The job of the Home Secretary is to keep the country safe, not to run a full time Tory leadership campaign.
Yet Rishi Sunak is too weak to stop her.
He’s just given up on serious government - the country deserves better than this
Article 8.2 of the Ministerial code says all such interventions have to be cleared.
Given it wasn’t cleared, what will he do now? My letter to the PM is below.
https://twitter.com/patmcfaddenmp/status/1722633458269175877
Or have you given up on him ?
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1722629351064367435
If she does get moved, or leaves altogether, my guess would be Kemi Badenoch to the Home Office. Could be the making or breaking of her and likely lead to Suella being eclipsed and even forgotten about. But again, who knows?
Is the USA not coming to an inflection point regardless of who is in the White House?
"I think I have found a genuine story in @NadineDorries's book, The Plot, out today. It concerns manoeuvrings to get the “right” person in to chair the supposedly independent media regulator, @ofcom (thread) (1/9 )
"Dorries describes a meeting in which @RobbieGibb , former comms director for Theresa May and a BBC director, tried to persuade her to appoint Lord Stephen Gilbert, “a party apparatchik” to chair Ofcom (2/9)
"Dorries thought Michael Grade was infinitely more qualified. But she was lobbied by past and present Number 10 operatives – including a “bullying” call from Douglas Smith – to back Gilbert, not Grade. (3/9)
"Dorries nevertheless wrote Johnson a note for his red box recommending Grade. She writes; “Astonishingly, during the night my advice note to the PM was changed in his red box and placed with one recommending Gilbert.” (4/9)
I mean FFS
Nursing bursaries went to nurses already training on the wards, not in a university
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/09/braverman-clarifies-northern-ireland-comments-amid-angry-criticism
Have changed to Junts per Anglaterra too, with emphasis on the terra.
TACOMA – “It’s going to depend on whose version of events the jury adopts.”
Those words Wednesday, from police use of force expert John Ryan, succinctly summed up the first six weeks of testimony in the trial of three Tacoma police officers charged in the death of Manuel Ellis. . . .
The trial, which is expected to last another month, will continue Monday with the defense likely to call its first witnesses.
Jurors have heard stark differences between officers’ and eyewitnesses’ accounts of what triggered the interaction that resulted in Ellis’ death.
Civilian witnesses who watched and filmed the struggle between Ellis and officers point to the police as the aggressors. Officers’ statements, made to detectives months before those cell phone videos surfaced, maintain that Ellis violently attacked them and it was necessary to use the level of force they did to subdue him.
Ellis, 33, died March 3, 2020, after Tacoma police say they saw him trying to enter a passing car in an intersection, leading to a struggle. Ellis repeatedly said he could not breathe while officers continued to apply force. The Pierce County Medical Examiner ruled Ellis’ death a homicide due to physical restraint. Lawyers for the officers claim Ellis died from the high level of methamphetamine in his system coupled with an underlying heart condition.
Tacoma police officers Matthew Collins, 40, and Christopher “Shane” Burbank, 38, are charged with second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter. Officer Timothy Rankine, 34, is charged with first-degree manslaughter. . . .
Collins and Burbank were the first to contact Ellis and were recorded on cell phone videos by witnesses. Three witnesses testified Ellis was walking away from a police cruiser when he appeared to be summoned to the vehicle. Once he reached it, the passenger’s door, where Burbank sat, flew open, knocking Ellis to the ground and triggering the violent subdual of Ellis that all three witnesses described as unprovoked.
The witness videos show Collins wrapping his arm around Ellis’ neck, striking Ellis repeatedly, slamming him to the ground and placing a knee near the base of Ellis’ neck while he was prone on the ground. Burbank can be seen jolting Ellis three times with a Taser, including once with his arms raised in what an expert witness described as a “submissive” pose. . . .
Collins told detectives days after Ellis’ death that the struggle started when Ellis lifted him off the ground and threw him through the air to land on his back. None of the eyewitnesses saw that happen. Even Burbank, who was Collins’ partner that night, told detectives he slammed the door into Ellis because he was concerned Ellis might be preparing to attack Collins – not that he had. . . .
Dorries is backing Braverman.
That's a huge blow for Braverman.
Not quite true, as the report says she was defended by Ian Paisley. I must admit I thought he was dead.
Good luck to him, but Im not getting my hopes up.
What if he gets nobbled, the GOP cant field a candidate in time and RFK beats Biden.
Would that be scarier ?
It isn't true.
Believing Dorries on any given point would be like uncritically accepting the views of David Irving. Very stupid and likely to have embarrassing results.
Even if they later prove to be true.
But to what extent has she got on Sunak's Wick?
It will be the Cones website in office and when he's gone we'll discover hes been nobbing Emily Thornberry.
Swashbuckling his way through the vested interests is not something he has ever done. His career has been about applying the process to the task.
I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you ...
The name of the ship was Nadine O'Dea
The party blew up, the polls dipped down
Oh blow, my mean girls, blow (huh)
Soon may the Braverman come
To stop the boats and tents and fun
One day, when Brexit is done
We'll take our Leave and go
His tenure as an MP is perhaps most notable for his being the first MP to face a recall petition and, to date, the only to survive a recall petition.
He probably isn’t going to address all of the deep structural issues that the country faces at the moment, but he’s a damn sight better than the current shower, so yes he deserves a go.
I would like him to be a little bolder, because I think he has more political capital to spend then he realises, but I get that the Labour Party is scarred from losing so many elections.
Ioannes Paisley iunior (Ian Paisley junior; natus in urbe Belfast die 12 Decembris 1966) est rerum politicarum peritus Hiberniae Septentrionalis, socius Factionis Unionistarum Democraticae a patre (Ioanne seniore conditae. Est legatus apud Parlamentum Regni Britanniarum a die 6 Maii 2010 pro circulo North Antrim, patri successor.
Edit: Congrats, though. Easy to carp from the sidelines, not so easy to actually do (or attempt to do) something.
However much hyperbole Is spoken it won't begin to describe the danger Trump poses to America and it's allies.
Me too: one very senior Tory says a reshuffle is coming, Braverman will not survive it. talks in Number Ten today.More at 6
https://twitter.com/AndrewMarr9/status/1722655805265076407
But do the timeframes for Suella's Sacking and the rest of the reshuffle mesh?
Where she could experience for herself the joys of the rough camping lifestyle!
AND monitor Arctic cruise ships to ensure that unsavory foreigners do NOT smuggle themselves ashore.