It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.
2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
Nobody could have predicted the events that have occurred since 2007, so why predict the rest of the 2020’s.
I think Labour will win pretty easily, but we’ve no idea how they’ll behave in office or what events might blow them off course.
The most significant comment recently was Wes Streeting saying we can’t keep pouring money into the NHS. It’s not a criticism of the NHS to say he’s correct. Governments will have to get used to saying “No”, as the population ages, but that won’t please people.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.
2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
A fifth term after 2019 should have been quite likely given the scale of the win. Now its not impossible but looks very improbable indeed.
So looking into third terms for Labour does feel a little premature.
That said, we do seem to like giving parties a fair run now. We're likely to go 14 years of Tory led government after 13 years of Labour government after 18 years of Tory government. Even if Labour only have a small majority I think a reasonable prediction of a second term having a decent chance can be made.
I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.
If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.
Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.
Leaving aside benefits, it's going to be very hard explaining away any tax cuts while schools and hospitals are literally falling down around us.
And I know the Tories' core voters will have at best grandchildren in the former, but hasn't it occurred to the cabinet that they make extensive use of the latter?
It really does grate calling it a tax cut when it's simply uprating the tax thresholds in line with inflation, which is what Governments of all stripes are supposed to do.
I'd call it resorting tax normality. Or tax fairness.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
Her knowledge of her local area was really useful when the local elections were taking place and she was quite right about Woking going Lib Dem.
I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.
If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.
Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.
Leaving aside benefits, it's going to be very hard explaining away any tax cuts while schools and hospitals are literally falling down around us.
And I know the Tories' core voters will have at best grandchildren in the former, but hasn't it occurred to the cabinet that they make extensive use of the latter?
It really does grate calling it a tax cut when it's simply uprating the tax thresholds in line with inflation, which is what Governments of all stripes are supposed to do.
I'd call it resorting tax normality. Or tax fairness.
It's certainly not a cut.
Ending fiscal drag isn't cutting taxes, its ending a tax rise. A tax rise that should never have happened. It absolutely is what should be done.
However prioritising IHT etc over cutting taxes on working people would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Number one priority should be that people should be able to keep more of their own money they've worked for.
It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.
2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
A fifth term after 2019 should have been quite likely given the scale of the win. Now its not impossible but looks very improbable indeed.
So looking into third terms for Labour does feel a little premature.
That said, we do seem to like giving parties a fair run now. We're likely to go 14 years of Tory led government after 13 years of Labour government after 18 years of Tory government. Even if Labour only have a small majority I think a reasonable prediction of a second term having a decent chance can be made.
Labour haven't won the next one yet.
Rishi has come out swinging and the client media are loving it. I may have thought Sunak petulant, beyond belief this week, but the Mail are loving him. And the Mail have more influence than me.
It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.
2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
A fifth term after 2019 should have been quite likely given the scale of the win. Now its not impossible but looks very improbable indeed.
So looking into third terms for Labour does feel a little premature.
That said, we do seem to like giving parties a fair run now. We're likely to go 14 years of Tory led government after 13 years of Labour government after 18 years of Tory government. Even if Labour only have a small majority I think a reasonable prediction of a second term having a decent chance can be made.
Surely true. We aren't really very good at predicting politics ahead 12 months let alone 12 years.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
Her knowledge of her local area was really useful when the local elections were taking place and she was quite right about Woking going Lib Dem.
Credit where it's due. We fell out when I marveled at Boris's takedown of Starmer over Savile. Surely about to be resurrected for the GE campaign.
I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.
If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.
Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.
Leaving aside benefits, it's going to be very hard explaining away any tax cuts while schools and hospitals are literally falling down around us.
And I know the Tories' core voters will have at best grandchildren in the former, but hasn't it occurred to the cabinet that they make extensive use of the latter?
It really does grate calling it a tax cut when it's simply uprating the tax thresholds in line with inflation, which is what Governments of all stripes are supposed to do.
I'd call it resorting tax normality. Or tax fairness.
It's certainly not a cut.
What's not a cut? About ten different tax changes have been leaked by the govt so far in their bizarre plan of over promise and never deliver.
Sure increasing allowances in line with inflation should not be called a cut, but clearly reducing the rates of IT, NI, IHT, Corporation Tax all are.
It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.
2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
Nobody could have predicted the events that have occurred since 2007, so why predict the rest of the 2020’s.
I think Labour will win pretty easily, but we’ve no idea how they’ll behave in office or what events might blow them off course.
The most significant comment recently was Wes Streeting saying we can’t keep pouring money into the NHS. It’s not a criticism of the NHS to say he’s correct. Governments will have to get used to saying “No”, as the population ages, but that won’t please people.
It's heresy to say it but we need to admit that we can't forever provide free, unlimited non-palliative healthcare to people who will die in a few days or weeks anyway while for instance mid-life cancer treatment is starved of resources.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
Nah, someone stating one side of a two horse race is a certainty is not proved correct when their horse wins.
Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.
Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.
I suspect he knows this.
Yes, a lot like this was said in the mid nineties too.
I found this summary graphic of polls, broken down by crosstabs showing the Tory lead pretty damning.
The figure for the Tories for anyone of working age are horrendous.
I see you've wonderful missed the point.
Also, it's not the 1990s anymore. Voting loyalties and coalitions are nothing like as stable as they once were.
With the usual resrervations, I think the anti-Tory coalition is very stable - the Conservatives have been under 30% for the last year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election). You're right that few people feel greatly excited about Labour, and recent divisions reinforce that, but the decision to change the government is settled in most minds.
It's also noticeable that those divisions between MPs are very politely expressed. Where Braverman goes full-on with spelling out Sunak's perceived flaws, none of the resigning MPs does more than say that they favour a ceasefire and it's a mistake not to do so. That is an adult debate, not a chaotic squabble.
Starmer should simply purge the party of the antisemites.
The party would be better off without the likes of Burgon.
If he did, given the state of the Tories, I'd probably vote for his party.
He said he had done that already.....
And he was wrong. I never gave him the credit for expelling Corbyn but keeping Burgon etc.
He has an opportunity to actually do it this time. An opportunity I expect he'll flunk unfortunately.
He may have expelled Corbyn but he campaigned to make him Prime Minister for three years and sucked up to him when it suited him. Also sucked up to his supported to become leader than promptly ditched all his promises to them.
He is a lying, opportunistic turd, even more than most lawyer-politicians.
OK, it's B***** and one shouldn't swear on a Sunday morning, but this is a different take on the subject;
From the latest wave of @BESResearch, preferences on Britain's future membership of the EU by supermarket. A landslide for rejoining among co-op shoppers, finely balanced at M&S, while Iceland shoppers still believe in Brexit.
If Brexit is shorthand for "everything this government is doing", trying to please both M&S and Iceland shoppers is why Sunak has way more headaches than Starmer.
So all the biggest supermarkets showing very close to the average and the three smallest completely different? Sample sizes need checking here....
I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.
If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.
Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.
Thanks. As it happens I think Labour will win a landslide.
My contention is that this is meaningless in any "protection" it offers and it could easily melt away extremely quickly, and not necessarily to the Tories either.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.
There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
Yes, a couple of other things strike me too: LAB has a firm 35 point lead amongst Remainers, but has made a big dent in the Tory lead amongst Leavers. I think this is the softer end of the "Culture War" with Brexit increasingly recognised as a dead end.
The second one is the clear lead amongst ethnic minority Britons for Labour, despite this being the most multicultural Tory government in history.
What a coincidence that the data you've selected confirms the views you already had.
I have no faith that Streeting has an adequate plan, just more of the same failed privatisation around the edges. It looks very much like that the rest of the NHS will follow the path of NHS dentistry, existing only in theory.
and that’s just in Health. Our education system is in an even worse mess because (for example) as a primary school you have to be substandard to be rated good, because of the disastrous curriculum framework Ofsted use.
And our transport system is about to implode due to the infrastructure being totally inadequate and what infrastructure is being built being pared back past reason.
Yet still, somehow, we are spending 100 billion more than we raise in taxes.
Something is fundamentally wrong with this country. It’s no wonder extremist nutcases like Corbyn, Johnson, Farage and Braverman are being listened to.
But also, there's a degree of he UK being in this mess because we've listened to the nutcases. Worse than that, we've let them decide the direction of the nation. And Rishi, wibbling about tax cuts when there's still a hundred billion pound a year deficit, is just a different sort of nutcase.
There is some unpleasant medicine to come up, which is a difference between now and 1997. What Starmer has to hope is that that medicine and the passage of time, mean that he can point to things having got a bit better by 2028 or so.
He'll probably be helped in this by the 2025 Conservative leadership election. Because even if they avoid Braverman, who is the brilliant Conservative leader who enthuses the party to go back towards the electorate? Because that's roughly the only thing that has ever worked for an opposition.
Heath wasn't brilliant (at least not as a politician) but he managed it.
Fair point. Do the 2025 Conservatives have a Heath? Hell, do they have a Howard? Last week's reshuffle says no- the current mix of nutters and nobodies is as good as it gets in the near future.
At the close of 2019 Starmer was a nobody giving full-throated support to a nutter. Things can change very quickly when they need to, as can politicians.
But a future Conservative leader of the opposition - let's call them Jami Clevernoch - would indeed need to appeal to the fabled 'centre ground' and could only do so if the government accidentally gave them space to do so. That seems to me unlikely, but since at least 2015 politics has been too unpredictable to make any assertions that could confidently stand the test of time (save perhaps for a Labour victory at the next General Election).
It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.
2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
A fifth term after 2019 should have been quite likely given the scale of the win. Now its not impossible but looks very improbable indeed.
So looking into third terms for Labour does feel a little premature.
That said, we do seem to like giving parties a fair run now. We're likely to go 14 years of Tory led government after 13 years of Labour government after 18 years of Tory government. Even if Labour only have a small majority I think a reasonable prediction of a second term having a decent chance can be made.
Labour haven't won the next one yet.
Rishi has come out swinging and the client media are loving it. I may have thought Sunak petulant, beyond belief this week, but the Mail are loving him. And the Mail have more influence than me.
One thing at PMQs that spoke well of Rishi Sunak is that he knew how well Southampton are doing so he at least follows the club unlike some Downing Street football fans (Blair, Cameron).
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
Nah, someone stating one side of a two horse race is a certainty is not proved correct when their horse wins.
No, both were compelling from the start of the count, @Alistair was keeping a projection spreadsheet and identified the moment in the future when Biden would surge ahead.
It is amusing to see all the posts about Labour being likely assured third terms. Many, including me, thought the Tories were assured a fifth after 2019, or at least a HP scenario in the worst case. Look at it now.
2034 is a long way off. The world could be a very different place by then.
Nobody could have predicted the events that have occurred since 2007, so why predict the rest of the 2020’s.
I think Labour will win pretty easily, but we’ve no idea how they’ll behave in office or what events might blow them off course.
The most significant comment recently was Wes Streeting saying we can’t keep pouring money into the NHS. It’s not a criticism of the NHS to say he’s correct. Governments will have to get used to saying “No”, as the population ages, but that won’t please people.
It's heresy to say it but we need to admit that we can't forever provide free, unlimited non-palliative healthcare to people who will die in a few days or weeks anyway while for instance mid-life cancer treatment is starved of resources.
We don't provide unlined non-palliative care to the dying already. Hence the controversies over DNA and Respect forms, court cases over ending care of children incapable of survival etc.
What we lack is omniscience to consistently be able to tell who is going to make a strong recovery to several more years of independence, and who will expire shortly.
I think Casino is correct about the labour lead being quite shallow. However I cannot see anything really changing to move the dial.
If what is rumoured about the autumn statement is true, priorities IHT cuts for the few and hammering benefits while doing nothing for those of us in work then the Tories are just really attempting to shore up the blue wall ahead of next years defeat.
Labour with a small but workable majority, around 40-50.
Thanks. As it happens I think Labour will win a landslide.
My contention is that this is meaningless in any "protection" it offers and it could easily melt away extremely quickly, and not necessarily to the Tories either.
The next election still has 1992 stamped all over it. Particular in leadership styles, and you can't deny that soap box might come in handy for Rishi.
"Coldharbour Road? Goodness it's still here" (my precis).
Starmer should simply purge the party of the antisemites.
The party would be better off without the likes of Burgon.
If he did, given the state of the Tories, I'd probably vote for his party.
He said he had done that already.....
And he was wrong. I never gave him the credit for expelling Corbyn but keeping Burgon etc.
He has an opportunity to actually do it this time. An opportunity I expect he'll flunk unfortunately.
He may have expelled Corbyn but he campaigned to make him Prime Minister for three years and sucked up to him when it suited him. Also sucked up to his supported to become leader than promptly ditched all his promises to them.
He is a lying, opportunistic turd, even more than most lawyer-politicians.
Yep. Like I said he is capable of making his own luck, by scenting opportunity.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
Nah, someone stating one side of a two horse race is a certainty is not proved correct when their horse wins.
No, both were compelling from the start of the count, @Alistair was keeping a projection spreadsheet and identified the moment in the future when Biden would surge ahead.
Did the spreadsheet have a line about whether the Jan 6 mob would find Pence?
Starmer should simply purge the party of the antisemites.
The party would be better off without the likes of Burgon.
If he did, given the state of the Tories, I'd probably vote for his party.
He said he had done that already.....
And he was wrong. I never gave him the credit for expelling Corbyn but keeping Burgon etc.
He has an opportunity to actually do it this time. An opportunity I expect he'll flunk unfortunately.
He may have expelled Corbyn but he campaigned to make him Prime Minister for three years and sucked up to him when it suited him. Also sucked up to his supported to become leader than promptly ditched all his promises to them.
He is a lying, opportunistic turd, even more than most lawyer-politicians.
So we have you down as a "maybe".
For all Starmer's manifold faults you voted Johnson, and with enthusiasm. Your opinion is thus questionable.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.
There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
Yes, a couple of other things strike me too: LAB has a firm 35 point lead amongst Remainers, but has made a big dent in the Tory lead amongst Leavers. I think this is the softer end of the "Culture War" with Brexit increasingly recognised as a dead end.
The second one is the clear lead amongst ethnic minority Britons for Labour, despite this being the most multicultural Tory government in history.
What a coincidence that the data you've selected confirms the views you already had.
Which data in that graphic of 6 months polls do you draw comfort from?
I am not a Labour supporter for a number of reasons, but particularly their authoritan, top down style of management.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
If we assume that Labour win a majority at the next election it looks like they will be the least popular opposition ever to do so. That will have consequences.
However, I have a pet theory that one factor behind the huge age divide in voting intention is that the retired are inclined to vote for the incumbent government more than previously. Labour did pretty well with the old in 2010, when they were the long-term incumbents feathering the pensioner nest.
So, if a new Labour government don't rock the pensioner boat, it's plausible that Labour might win votes there when seeking re-election. That could help to keep an unpopular Labour government in office.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
Nah, someone stating one side of a two horse race is a certainty is not proved correct when their horse wins.
No, both were compelling from the start of the count, @Alistair was keeping a projection spreadsheet and identified the moment in the future when Biden would surge ahead.
Did the spreadsheet have a line about whether the Jan 6 mob would find Pence?
No, because the count was in November. He wasn't @Mysticrose !
Labour's problems are really only papered over. Ratings for the party and Starmer himself are not good and he's only miles ahead because the Conservatives are utterly diabolical and people want rid: in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.
Their support may be a mile wide, but it's an inch deep.
I suspect he knows this.
Yes, a lot like this was said in the mid nineties too.
I found this summary graphic of polls, broken down by crosstabs showing the Tory lead pretty damning.
The figure for the Tories for anyone of working age are horrendous.
I see you've wonderful missed the point.
Also, it's not the 1990s anymore. Voting loyalties and coalitions are nothing like as stable as they once were.
With the usual resrervations, I think the anti-Tory coalition is very stable - the Conservatives have been under 30% for the last year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election). You're right that few people feel greatly excited about Labour, and recent divisions reinforce that, but the decision to change the government is settled in most minds.
It's also noticeable that those divisions between MPs are very politely expressed. Where Braverman goes full-on with spelling out Sunak's perceived flaws, none of the resigning MPs does more than say that they favour a ceasefire and it's a mistake not to do so. That is an adult debate, not a chaotic squabble.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.
There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
Yes, a couple of other things strike me too: LAB has a firm 35 point lead amongst Remainers, but has made a big dent in the Tory lead amongst Leavers. I think this is the softer end of the "Culture War" with Brexit increasingly recognised as a dead end.
The second one is the clear lead amongst ethnic minority Britons for Labour, despite this being the most multicultural Tory government in history.
What a coincidence that the data you've selected confirms the views you already had.
Which data in that graphic of 6 months polls do you draw comfort from?
I am not a Labour supporter for a number of reasons, but particularly their authoritan, top down style of management.
I just can read the polls.
You're a very boring man.
I've said a landslide is likely and have bet accordingly. I don't need you to point it out for me.
What you need to get through your head is that this is highly subject to change, and not the whole country permanently coming round to your way of thinking, as you seem to think it does.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
The amount of suffering does not depend one iota on what the leader of the opposition in the UK says. It only marginally depends on what the US President says. It is between Israel and Hamas.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Well keep telling yourself this as I expect it makes you feel better about what is coming.
You are, however, deluded. (In my opinion.)
I’ve heard this all before. Sir Keir is basically ensuring that he secures middle Britain, which he is and will. Once the first election victory is under his belt he will relax a bit more, as will the electorate. And he will secure a second, and almost certainly a third term. Although by then he will be ageing and it may be the turn for a new Labour leader.
You're asserting delusion because I'm saying something you don't want to hear.
In the last few weeks the proportion of people thinking Labour is divided has almost doubled. That's come out of just one major issue that's emerged due to events. And Starmer's ratings are already negative - before he's even taken office.
Yet here you are taking sentiment that exists, today, and comfortably making predictions way off into a future - a future about which you know absolutely nothing.
I look at history and from that suggest you are deluding yourself. I’ve heard your claims about this before and they have always proved wrong.
It’s basically sour grapes. The tories are going to lose, heavily, and will be out of office for a very long time and deservedly so. Get used to it. Most of their MPs are …
As for being a ‘fanatic’ I’m afraid that to you anyone left of centre who disagrees with you would be labelled as such.
I expect Labour to make many mistakes and I am not enamoured of all that Keir Starmer says. I will be on here being critical of them when they are in office, as and when it is appropriate.
Generally though, under Labour, this time things really can only get better.
(Unless you’re raging against the dying of the light, in which case that person may become more and more embittered by it all.)
And yet I've been on this site almost 20 years and have consistently made money betting on politics, regardless of the political cycle or what I personally think of it.
So what does that tell you?
Tbf, in a previous incarnation @Heathener was a great source of reliability when Trump wanted to stop the count. Whilst many of us were panicking, the artist now known as @Heathener and also another former poster @Alistair were a great source of comfort, and they were both proven correct.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.
There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
Yes, a couple of other things strike me too: LAB has a firm 35 point lead amongst Remainers, but has made a big dent in the Tory lead amongst Leavers. I think this is the softer end of the "Culture War" with Brexit increasingly recognised as a dead end.
The second one is the clear lead amongst ethnic minority Britons for Labour, despite this being the most multicultural Tory government in history.
What a coincidence that the data you've selected confirms the views you already had.
Which data in that graphic of 6 months polls do you draw comfort from?
I am not a Labour supporter for a number of reasons, but particularly their authoritan, top down style of management.
I just can read the polls.
You're a very boring man.
I've said a landslide is likely and have bet accordingly. I don't need you to point it out for me.
What you need to get through your head is that this is highly subject to change, and not the whole country permanently coming round to your way of thinking, as you seem to think it does.
Starmerism is not my way of thinking!
There is both precedent (we have had only one single parliament government in the last 90 years) and also the turn of the economic cycle will happen in Starmers first term. This will give the false impression that it is Labour causing economic recovery.
Yep, frustration will build with poor progress in repairing our public services, but that was a feature of Blairs first term too. It didn't benefit the Conservatives.
A Tory comeback is also prevented by the lack of any centrist impulse in the party or its membership. The next leader will be a choice between gonzo-libertarianism and troglodyte Culture War. Neither is likely to have massive appeal to voters.
Sure there can be black swan events, and these can happen quickly, but far more likely are white swan events.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
OR....
Hamas give up all the hostages
Agree to cease rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza
Give up details of all tunnels and weapons and have the UN oversee their destruction
Oh, and stop using mosques, schools, universities and hospitals as the sites of their war effort - and defying the Israelis not to hit them.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
OR....
Hamas give up all the hostages
Agree to cease rocket attacks on Gaza
Give up details of all tunnels and weapons and have the UN oversee their destruction
Oh, and stop using mosques, schools, universities and hospitals as the sites of their war effort - and defying the Israelis not to hit them.
All good points but Roger is correct. Whether anyone in Israel or Hamas gives a damn about British public opinion is doubtful but Starmer (and Sunak) should.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
Woger has called it, yet again.
You have missed the word 'right'
The immutable rule is: you are always wrong, about absolutely everything, unless it's the Oscars.
You are right about that because it's full of people who think like you do.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes , they will move on to Sudan shortly where the same and worse is actually taking place with no-one giving a crap about it. Will be usual millions of refugees, rape , pillage and killing , please send us gazillions of money to rebuild everything we have shot/blown up and so on and so on.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
The amount of suffering does not depend one iota on what the leader of the opposition in the UK says. It only marginally depends on what the US President says. It is between Israel and Hamas.
I agree. But it matters a lot to the centre and centre left that 'our' political party shows compassion. Remember it was Iraq that destroyed Blair. Without it he'd have been considered one of the best PM's we've ever had
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The confused briefing over Inheritance Tax again underlines how No.10 are currently incapable of settling on an agreed political strategy, and sticking to it.
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.
There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
Yes, a couple of other things strike me too: LAB has a firm 35 point lead amongst Remainers, but has made a big dent in the Tory lead amongst Leavers. I think this is the softer end of the "Culture War" with Brexit increasingly recognised as a dead end.
The second one is the clear lead amongst ethnic minority Britons for Labour, despite this being the most multicultural Tory government in history.
What a coincidence that the data you've selected confirms the views you already had.
Which data in that graphic of 6 months polls do you draw comfort from?
I am not a Labour supporter for a number of reasons, but particularly their authoritan, top down style of management.
I just can read the polls.
You're a very boring man.
I've said a landslide is likely and have bet accordingly. I don't need you to point it out for me.
What you need to get through your head is that this is highly subject to change, and not the whole country permanently coming round to your way of thinking, as you seem to think it does.
Starmerism is not my way of thinking!
There is both precedent (we have had only one single parliament government in the last 90 years) and also the turn of the economic cycle will happen in Starmers first term. This will give the false impression that it is Labour causing economic recovery.
Yep, frustration will build with poor progress in repairing our public services, but that was a feature of Blairs first term too. It didn't benefit the Conservatives.
A Tory comeback is also prevented by the lack of any centrist impulse in the party or its membership. The next leader will be a choice between gonzo-libertarianism and troglodyte Culture War. Neither is likely to have massive appeal to voters.
Sure there can be black swan events, and these can happen quickly, but far more likely are white swan events.
OR Starmer will be like the inept Labour government of the mid 70s. And he will fall to the pressures of economic failure and global instability - in the Middle East for instance - and then a Thatcher figure will win for the Tories from the right
This is just as possible as your scenario. The complacency of the centre and left on here is absurd. If there is anything the 2020s have taught us it is: what you expect will not happen.
This is unexpected, but welcome. But so unexpected that it is as sussy as a very sussy thing hanging around a sussy street on a very sussy night, whilst whispering sussy things under its sussy breath.
"280 million e-bikes are slashing oil demand far more than electric vehicles E-bikes and scooters displace 4x as much demand for oil as all of the EVs in the world."
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
The amount of suffering does not depend one iota on what the leader of the opposition in the UK says. It only marginally depends on what the US President says. It is between Israel and Hamas.
I agree. But it matters a lot to the centre and centre left that 'our' political party shows compassion. Remember it was Iraq that destroyed Blair. Without it he'd have been considered one of the best PM's we've ever had
Well it seems pretty pointless to me. I'd rather Blair or similar than Johnson, Truss, Rishi, Braverman, which is what happens when the left take the Corbynite viewpoint. Compassion alone without a dollop of logic and pragmatism on top delivers bad results here and doesn't help anyone in the Middle East. So why?
It's also worth looking at just how quickly this polling has changed.
It's a warning to those who think Labour must trend to 10+ years in office again if they win a landslide next year.
Though voting intention has changed very little, perhaps even shifted more to Labour.
There is no sign of anyone being able to recapture the centre ground or working age vote for the Tories as next leader.
The absence of any class difference in those data is also remarkable, at least for anyone who remembers how things used to be.
Yes, a couple of other things strike me too: LAB has a firm 35 point lead amongst Remainers, but has made a big dent in the Tory lead amongst Leavers. I think this is the softer end of the "Culture War" with Brexit increasingly recognised as a dead end.
The second one is the clear lead amongst ethnic minority Britons for Labour, despite this being the most multicultural Tory government in history.
What a coincidence that the data you've selected confirms the views you already had.
Which data in that graphic of 6 months polls do you draw comfort from?
I am not a Labour supporter for a number of reasons, but particularly their authoritan, top down style of management.
I just can read the polls.
You're a very boring man.
I've said a landslide is likely and have bet accordingly. I don't need you to point it out for me.
What you need to get through your head is that this is highly subject to change, and not the whole country permanently coming round to your way of thinking, as you seem to think it does.
Starmerism is not my way of thinking!
There is both precedent (we have had only one single parliament government in the last 90 years) and also the turn of the economic cycle will happen in Starmers first term. This will give the false impression that it is Labour causing economic recovery.
Yep, frustration will build with poor progress in repairing our public services, but that was a feature of Blairs first term too. It didn't benefit the Conservatives.
A Tory comeback is also prevented by the lack of any centrist impulse in the party or its membership. The next leader will be a choice between gonzo-libertarianism and troglodyte Culture War. Neither is likely to have massive appeal to voters.
Sure there can be black swan events, and these can happen quickly, but far more likely are white swan events.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
The amount of suffering does not depend one iota on what the leader of the opposition in the UK says. It only marginally depends on what the US President says. It is between Israel and Hamas.
I agree. But it matters a lot to the centre and centre left that 'our' political party shows compassion. Remember it was Iraq that destroyed Blair. Without it he'd have been considered one of the best PM's we've ever had
Destroyed = winning the next general election.
Don't get me wrong, I was 100% against the invasion of Iraq and think Blair deserves a visit to The Hague, but we wasn't destroyed by the decision to go to war.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The confused briefing over Inheritance Tax again underlines how No.10 are currently incapable of settling on an agreed political strategy, and sticking to it.
Their strategy is pretty settled. Promise as many things as possible. Deliver as few things as possible for the maximum cost.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The confused briefing over Inheritance Tax again underlines how No.10 are currently incapable of settling on an agreed political strategy, and sticking to it.
Either that or a brilliant Downing Street ruse to waste Labour's time researching how much IHT cuts will benefit the families Sunak and Hunt.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
The banality of evil is a common theme in Nazi studies iirc. See Arendt for example.
This is unexpected, but welcome. But so unexpected that it is as sussy as a very sussy thing hanging around a sussy street on a very sussy night, whilst whispering sussy things under its sussy breath.
"280 million e-bikes are slashing oil demand far more than electric vehicles E-bikes and scooters displace 4x as much demand for oil as all of the EVs in the world."
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h The confused briefing over Inheritance Tax again underlines how No.10 are currently incapable of settling on an agreed political strategy, and sticking to it.
Either that or a brilliant Downing Street ruse to waste Labour's time researching how much IHT cuts will benefit the families Sunak and Hunt.
Latest from STimes seems to be they will do IHT in the Spring and dick about with income tax next week instead.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
The amount of suffering does not depend one iota on what the leader of the opposition in the UK says. It only marginally depends on what the US President says. It is between Israel and Hamas.
If it makes no difference what the leader of the opposition in the UK says, why are Starmer and his pals torturing the English language to death over the difference between a ceasefire and a humanitarian pause? Is it just because he's got to fill the airwaves with something?
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
Maybe they'll feel they're doing their bit by giving their keyboards a battering. Seems to work for a lot of PBers.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
A fair question but it cuts both ways, as those slow to condemn Israel were quick to condemn Russia for the same acts. Why is Israel different is the wrong question. Why is Palestine different might be better. Since there is overwhelming support for Ukraine, and even some of the doubters cite pragmatic rather than ideological grounds (Ukraine should settle for the best deal it can get because its tanks will never enter Moscow) I'm not sure we can push the parallels too far.
I think Keir is making a big mistake . There's only so much brutality the British stomache can take. This has gone well past the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
The amount of suffering does not depend one iota on what the leader of the opposition in the UK says. It only marginally depends on what the US President says. It is between Israel and Hamas.
If it makes no difference what the leader of the opposition in the UK says, why are Starmer and his pals torturing the English language to death over the difference between a ceasefire and a humanitarian pause? Is it just because he's got to fill the airwaves with something?
I don't know, I don't get the whole thing. I would rather they talk about UK tax policy.
The times when the UK might actually be able to have a positive influence is when the situation in the Middle East is "quiet", as then both sides will be more open to listening and talking. Perversely that is when we give them the least attention.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
If our government was supporting Russia's atrocities you might see more of that.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
But we got bored of Ukraine. We will get bored of Gaza. Israel is possibly relying on this
In the end no one is going to intervene. No Arab nation is going to war over Gaza - not even Hezbollah
Israel is going to flatten the place and dare the world to stop it. And most of the world, maybe all of it, will shrug
And label those who don't shrug as antisemites.
The correct label is anti Palestinian
It’s pretty obvious now that half the countries in the Middle East are tacitly cheering on Israel. They want Jerusalem to finish the job. End the problem once and for all
That’s my reading. All the outrage from Muslim leaders is so much confected nonsense. Once Gaza is a smoking ruin Erdogan and Sisi and the rest will be doing deals with Israel once more
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
If our government was supporting Russia's atrocities you might see more of that.
We're not 'supporting' Israel's atrocities. But neither are we 'ignoring' what Hamas did. Unlike so many people.
I'm old enough to remember when Chancellors wouldn't talk to the media for weeks, possibly months, before any Budget or Autumn Financial Statement - purdah it was called.
Now they're continuously babbling about what they might or might not do.
Raising expectations only for them to be dashed in reality.
When did this change happen ? The Gordon Brown era I suspect.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
A fair question but it cuts both ways, as those slow to condemn Israel were quick to condemn Russia for the same acts. Why is Israel different is the wrong question. Why is Palestine different might be better. Since there is overwhelming support for Ukraine, and even some of the doubters cite pragmatic rather than ideological grounds (Ukraine should settle for the best deal it can get because its tanks will never enter Moscow) I'm not sure we can push the parallels too far.
They're not the same acts though, are they? It's a false equivalence. Ukraine had not attacked Russia in the way Hamas attacked Israel six weeks ago.
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
If our government was supporting Russia's atrocities you might see more of that.
We're giving hundreds of millions to Pakistan as it expels refugees to a destitute theocracy.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Interestingly though the anti-Israel mentality seems to be increasing in the West while fading in the Arab world.
Yes why *is* Israel given so much slack by the west (esp the UK and US) on its behaviour towards the Palestinians?
You should still tell us, imo, even if you think we all know. Because maybe not everyone does.
Simple: because we remember what happened eighty years ago, and realise that Hamas, and other actors in the region such as Iran, would be very happy if the same thing happened again.
I fear some people in the west would also be quite glad if the same thing happened again...
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
If our government was supporting Russia's atrocities you might see more of that.
We're giving hundreds of millions to Pakistan as it expels refugees to a destitute theocracy.
Well that's foreign aid for you. It's a complex area. But what has this got to do with whether people here hit the streets or not to protest Putin's war on Ukraine?
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
A fair question but it cuts both ways, as those slow to condemn Israel were quick to condemn Russia for the same acts. Why is Israel different is the wrong question. Why is Palestine different might be better. Since there is overwhelming support for Ukraine, and even some of the doubters cite pragmatic rather than ideological grounds (Ukraine should settle for the best deal it can get because its tanks will never enter Moscow) I'm not sure we can push the parallels too far.
They're not the same acts though, are they? It's a false equivalence. Ukraine had not attacked Russia in the way Hamas attacked Israel six weeks ago.
The same acts are the same acts: see your own post to which I replied.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Interestingly though the anti-Israel mentality seems to be increasing in the West while fading in the Arab world.
Yes why *is* Israel given so much slack by the west (esp the UK and US) on its behaviour towards the Palestinians?
You should still tell us, imo, even if you think we all know. Because maybe not everyone does.
Simple: because we remember what happened eighty years ago, and realise that Hamas, and other actors in the region such as Iran, would be very happy if the same thing happened again.
I fear some people in the west would also be quite glad if the same thing happened again...
That doesn't ring true to me as being the main or only reason.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Interestingly though the anti-Israel mentality seems to be increasing in the West while fading in the Arab world.
Yes why *is* Israel given so much slack by the west (esp the UK and US) on its behaviour towards the Palestinians?
You should still tell us, imo, even if you think we all know. Because maybe not everyone does.
Simple: because we remember what happened eighty years ago, and realise that Hamas, and other actors in the region such as Iran, would be very happy if the same thing happened again.
I fear some people in the west would also be quite glad if the same thing happened again...
That doesn't ring true to me as being the main or only reason.
What do you think it is, then? What reason does the 'west' give so much slack towards Israel?
I'm old enough to remember when Chancellors wouldn't talk to the media for weeks, possibly months, before any Budget or Autumn Financial Statement - purdah it was called.
Now they're continuously babbling about what they might or might not do.
Raising expectations only for them to be dashed in reality.
When did this change happen ? The Gordon Brown era I suspect.
Thats nothing I am old enough to remember when the actions of Conservative Chancellors were owned by themselves rather than shifting the responsibility onto one of Brown, Clegg or Corbyn.
Remarkable fielding performance by Australia. This Indian batting line up went 13 overs without a boundary! Its either a seriously tricky pitch or India are well short. I think that they need to score at least 8 an over for the last 9, arguably more.
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
If our government was supporting Russia's atrocities you might see more of that.
We're giving hundreds of millions to Pakistan as it expels refugees to a destitute theocracy.
Well that's foreign aid for you. It's a complex area. But what has this got to do with whether people here hit the streets or not to protest Putin's war on Ukraine?
I'm not aware of anyone in this country protesting about Pakistan's treatment of refugees.
Given the number of people in this country with a Pakistani or Afghan background compared with those of a Palestinian background the difference is blatant.
What I find curious is why you are so unwilling to acknowledge that so much of the anti-Israeli feeling is driven by antisemitism.
Its tolerance of antisemitism which allows it to thrive.
In addition, you can guarantee that none of these people will come onto the streets to protest Russia, when Russia starts its winter missile campaign against Ukraine's power and civil infrastructures.
If our government was supporting Russia's atrocities you might see more of that.
We're not 'supporting' Israel's atrocities. But neither are we 'ignoring' what Hamas did. Unlike so many people.
We sort of are. Or more to the point America is. Although I do think it's fair to say it doesn't matter that much since Israel is marching to their own drum on this. Which is unsurprising if you put yourself in their shoes. An unspeakable crime was committed against them (I don't think mini-holocaust exaggerates that wildly) and they are wreaking a bloody vengeance for it. It's wrong what they're doing, OTT, indiscriminate, counterproductive in the long term, not driven by reasonable military objectives, but it's understandable. I just hope they stop soon.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Interestingly though the anti-Israel mentality seems to be increasing in the West while fading in the Arab world.
Yes why *is* Israel given so much slack by the west (esp the UK and US) on its behaviour towards the Palestinians?
You should still tell us, imo, even if you think we all know. Because maybe not everyone does.
Simple: because we remember what happened eighty years ago, and realise that Hamas, and other actors in the region such as Iran, would be very happy if the same thing happened again.
I fear some people in the west would also be quite glad if the same thing happened again...
That doesn't ring true to me as being the main or only reason.
What do you think it is, then? What reason does the 'west' give so much slack towards Israel?
Guilt. And so many people travel between Israel and Western Europe.
But, and I'm sticking my neck out here I know, Israel's treatment of Gaza reminds me of the Nazi treatment of Warsaw. Any children left in the Gaza Strip will be easy recruits for militants.
I'm old enough to remember when Chancellors wouldn't talk to the media for weeks, possibly months, before any Budget or Autumn Financial Statement - purdah it was called.
Now they're continuously babbling about what they might or might not do.
Raising expectations only for them to be dashed in reality.
When did this change happen ? The Gordon Brown era I suspect.
Thats nothing I am old enough to remember when the actions of Conservative Chancellors were owned by themselves rather than shifting the responsibility onto one of Brown, Clegg or Corbyn.
I'm nowhere near old enough to recall Hugh Dalton resigning in 1947 for leaking his own budget.
Is it possible to get bored of appalling atrocities?
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
Yes, violence is something that damages both victim and perpetrator, and repeated violence brings moral peril. It becomes normalised to the point that cutting off the power to a neonatal unit becomes a legitimate act of war.
I get that; but the question comes as to why some acts caused tens of thousands to come out onto the streets, whereas others are ignored?
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
But we got bored of Ukraine. We will get bored of Gaza. Israel is possibly relying on this
In the end no one is going to intervene. No Arab nation is going to war over Gaza - not even Hezbollah
Israel is going to flatten the place and dare the world to stop it. And most of the world, maybe all of it, will shrug
And label those who don't shrug as antisemites.
The correct label is anti Palestinian
It’s pretty obvious now that half the countries in the Middle East are tacitly cheering on Israel. They want Jerusalem to finish the job. End the problem once and for all
That’s my reading. All the outrage from Muslim leaders is so much confected nonsense. Once Gaza is a smoking ruin Erdogan and Sisi and the rest will be doing deals with Israel once more
You could be right, I can't really argue that. I've no idea what Muslim leaders in the Middle East secretly want or don't want. My mind-reading expertise is strong (as you've found to your cost on several occasions) but it doesn't travel too well.
The story is full of holes . Designed to terrify the public into throwing their human rights in the bin and supporting the spineless gimps Rwanda obsession .
Comments
I think Labour will win pretty easily, but we’ve no idea how they’ll behave in office or what events might blow them off course.
The most significant comment recently was Wes Streeting saying we can’t keep pouring money into the NHS. It’s not a criticism of the NHS to say he’s correct. Governments will have to get used to saying “No”, as the population ages, but that won’t please people.
So looking into third terms for Labour does feel a little premature.
That said, we do seem to like giving parties a fair run now. We're likely to go 14 years of Tory led government after 13 years of Labour government after 18 years of Tory government. Even if Labour only have a small majority I think a reasonable prediction of a second term having a decent chance can be made.
I'd call it resorting tax normality. Or tax fairness.
It's certainly not a cut.
However prioritising IHT etc over cutting taxes on working people would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Number one priority should be that people should be able to keep more of their own money they've worked for.
Rishi has come out swinging and the client media are loving it. I may have thought Sunak petulant, beyond belief this week, but the Mail are loving him. And the Mail have more influence than me.
He has an opportunity to actually do it this time. An opportunity I expect he'll flunk unfortunately.
Sure increasing allowances in line with inflation should not be called a cut, but clearly reducing the rates of IT, NI, IHT, Corporation Tax all are.
Jeez
It's also noticeable that those divisions between MPs are very politely expressed. Where Braverman goes full-on with spelling out Sunak's perceived flaws, none of the resigning MPs does more than say that they favour a ceasefire and it's a mistake not to do so. That is an adult debate, not a chaotic squabble.
He is a lying, opportunistic turd, even more than most lawyer-politicians.
My contention is that this is meaningless in any "protection" it offers and it could easily melt away extremely quickly, and not necessarily to the Tories either.
But a future Conservative leader of the opposition - let's call them Jami Clevernoch - would indeed need to appeal to the fabled 'centre ground' and could only do so if the government accidentally gave them space to do so. That seems to me unlikely, but since at least 2015 politics has been too unpredictable to make any assertions that could confidently stand the test of time (save perhaps for a Labour victory at the next General Election).
What we lack is omniscience to consistently be able to tell who is going to make a strong recovery to several more years of independence, and who will expire shortly.
"Coldharbour Road? Goodness it's still here" (my precis).
For all Starmer's manifold faults you voted Johnson, and with enthusiasm. Your opinion is thus questionable.
I am not a Labour supporter for a number of reasons, but particularly their authoritan, top down style of management.
I just can read the polls.
However, I have a pet theory that one factor behind the huge age divide in voting intention is that the retired are inclined to vote for the incumbent government more than previously. Labour did pretty well with the old in 2010, when they were the long-term incumbents feathering the pensioner nest.
So, if a new Labour government don't rock the pensioner boat, it's plausible that Labour might win votes there when seeking re-election. That could help to keep an unpopular Labour government in office.
Whisky fanatic shocked as rare empty Macallan case bought for £200 on eBay is worth £138k
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/6251470/macallan-1926-valerio-adami-case/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/voices-a-tale-of-two-resignations-labour-is-hungry-for-power-the-tories-have-given-up/ar-AA1k9aEb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=NMTS&cvid=7abae4f383be468ab3b116830eec9058&ei=12
I've said a landslide is likely and have bet accordingly. I don't need you to point it out for me.
What you need to get through your head is that this is highly subject to change, and not the whole country permanently coming round to your way of thinking, as you seem to think it does.
We're now watching a horrible human tragedy that only the Israelis can stop. Their calling for a ceasefire will make no difference to anyone except for those people who have always believed the Labour Party are the Compassionate Party and have voted accordingly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i7ym_Qh7BA
There is both precedent (we have had only one single parliament government in the last 90 years) and also the turn of the economic cycle will happen in Starmers first term. This will give the false impression that it is Labour causing economic recovery.
Yep, frustration will build with poor progress in repairing our public services, but that was a feature of Blairs first term too. It didn't benefit the Conservatives.
A Tory comeback is also prevented by the lack of any centrist impulse in the party or its membership. The next leader will be a choice between gonzo-libertarianism and troglodyte Culture War. Neither is likely to have massive appeal to voters.
Sure there can be black swan events, and these can happen quickly, but far more likely are white swan events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNVQ0wIec3I
Hamas give up all the hostages
Agree to cease rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza
Give up details of all tunnels and weapons and have the UN oversee their destruction
Oh, and stop using mosques, schools, universities and hospitals as the sites of their war effort - and defying the Israelis not to hit them.
I think so
Every day I see Gazans dying on TV and online and I confess I start to shrug. I think you become inured. It’s awful but it’s human nature: it is impossible to maintain a state of perpetual and high pitched outrage
I’ve been read frank Dikotter’s excellent history of the Cultural Revolution and he describes a 16 year old girl told to beat her teacher to a bloody pulp. At first she was horrified and could barely look let alone join in
Within a week she saw so much she would do it - beat the teachers (sometimes to death) - never with happiness - always with some distaste. But mainly a bored shrug. She became inured
It was no longer horrifying just meh
You are right about that because it's full of people who think like you do.
Will be usual millions of refugees, rape , pillage and killing , please send us gazillions of money to rebuild everything we have shot/blown up and so on and so on.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
The confused briefing over Inheritance Tax again underlines how No.10 are currently incapable of settling on an agreed political strategy, and sticking to it.
then a Thatcher figure will win for the Tories from the right
This is just as possible as your scenario. The complacency of the centre and left on here is absurd. If there is anything the 2020s have taught us it is: what you expect will not happen.
This is unexpected, but welcome. But so unexpected that it is as sussy as a very sussy thing hanging around a sussy street on a very sussy night, whilst whispering sussy things under its sussy breath.
"280 million e-bikes are slashing oil demand far more than electric vehicles
E-bikes and scooters displace 4x as much demand for oil as all of the EVs in the world."
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/280-million-e-bikes-are-slashing-oil-demand-far-more-than-electric-vehicles/
It also shows how we (well, I...) can be too UK-focused, and not comprehend the popularity of scooters around the world.
Don't get me wrong, I was 100% against the invasion of Iraq and think Blair deserves a visit to The Hague, but we wasn't destroyed by the decision to go to war.
Russia has had a deliberate policy of attacking hospitals (and power infrastructure) in Syria and Ukraine. Yet there was silence from many of those protesting so vociferously now. In fact, many would have been in the "Ukraine must give in for peace!" grouping. They're not saying that about the Palestinians, are they?
Why is Israel different? Look at what the Russians did in Mariupol as an example., e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariupol_hospital_airstrike
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/03/16/1086982186/russias-strike-on-ukraine-maternity-hospital-is-part-of-a-terrible-wartime-tradi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTCOyzyJdag
In the end no one is going to intervene. No Arab nation is going to war over Gaza - not even Hezbollah
Israel is going to flatten the place and dare the world to stop it. And most of the world, maybe all of it, will shrug
The times when the UK might actually be able to have a positive influence is when the situation in the Middle East is "quiet", as then both sides will be more open to listening and talking. Perversely that is when we give them the least attention.
Interestingly though the anti-Israel mentality seems to be increasing in the West while fading in the Arab world.
It’s pretty obvious now that half the countries in the Middle East are tacitly cheering on Israel. They want Jerusalem to finish the job. End the problem once and for all
That’s my reading. All the outrage from Muslim leaders is so much confected nonsense. Once Gaza is a smoking ruin Erdogan and Sisi and the rest will be doing deals with Israel once more
Now they're continuously babbling about what they might or might not do.
Raising expectations only for them to be dashed in reality.
When did this change happen ? The Gordon Brown era I suspect.
You should still tell us, imo, even if you think we all know. Because maybe not everyone does.
I fear some people in the west would also be quite glad if the same thing happened again...
There's a big difference between what Israel has been doing in the West Bank and what it has done re Gaza.
Where do you think Israel has been given 'so much slack' re Gaza ?
When Israel withdrew its military and settlements from Gaza ?
When Israel provided energy supplies and tens of thousands of work permits for Gaza ?
When Israel responded to over a thousand people being killed by an attack from Gaza ?
MI6 spies near Damascus, Syria, reportedly uncovered an Iranian-backed plot
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24783609/manhunt-terror-mission-government-small-boats/
Given the number of people in this country with a Pakistani or Afghan background compared with those of a Palestinian background the difference is blatant.
What I find curious is why you are so unwilling to acknowledge that so much of the anti-Israeli feeling is driven by antisemitism.
Its tolerance of antisemitism which allows it to thrive.
But, and I'm sticking my neck out here I know, Israel's treatment of Gaza reminds me of the Nazi treatment of Warsaw.
Any children left in the Gaza Strip will be easy recruits for militants.
These people are stoned on their own farts.