Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
This is the first dying government I think I’ve seen where Number 10 has just completely lost control of the messaging. Even in the nadir of Majors government, or Browns, or when under May the Tories were basically ungovernable, you could still trust the Cabinet Office to at least try to present a consistent and positive narrative.
Now it just feels like everyone has given up and doesn’t really want to do this anymore.
The most incredible thing is to lose control completely whilst having a 56 seat majority. At least Major, May and Callaghan had the excuse of a tiny majority, or none at all.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
The problems on asylum are 90% presentation and 10% substance, laced with a dollop of underfunding. I hope Labour will spend more time on substance and less on gimmicks, but time will tell.
On legal migration the choices are far more difficult because of the trade offs in health and social care, higher education and elsewhere. I’m not sure how any government will manage these.
Labour will not reverse the no dependents rule for care and health workers, and the numbers from Ukraine and Hong Hong will also decline, so numbers are almost certainly going to come down anyway.
It’s a good point. Starmer may well get lucky on this, and the Tories will have taken the flak for all the bad decisions beforehand.
I’m not sure the no dependents rule will survive though. It’s going to put off a large proportion of health and care workers from coming, so unless they either discover a magical productivity solution, or unaffordable pay surge, I reckon they’ll need to reverse it.
I am not keen on it at all, but there will always be poor countries to mine for single people ready to live in terrible conditions and take low pay jobs so that they can send money home. The Philippines, for example. Working in a UKL care home may look a lot more attractive than living in a box and working for a demanding family in Hong Kong or the Gulf.
Pretty much all the 'hotel' staff on every cruise are people from south or east Asia doing exactly that - living away from their families for long stretches in order to send money back to give those families a better future.
And also not eligible for minimum wage, and without much in the way of labour rights, nor flights home and back to ship. Its only the tips that keeps them vaguely solvent, hence the importance of generous tipping when on a cruise.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Although there have been plenty of white horses in the Channel over the course of the year. When the weather was calm in late Spring the Channel was like the Henley Regatta.
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Just one sliver of evidence that the vitamin A content of peaches has declined by 97% would be good. Extraordinary claims and all that...
Why would I provide a slither of evidence when I haven't even made the claim? Read. The. Post.
@Ominium asked: Hey LG Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
You answered: The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
It will be an interesting dynamic. As much as many on here despise the current incumbents, I suspect quite a few also enjoy ripping apart everything they do, whether fair or not. While Labour will get some honeymoon, the problems the country faces will not magically improve when Starmer kisses Charles ring (is that what happens?).
No, he has to kiss his hand, though not actually a requirement. Though some PMs have, I think it has been documented.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
I'm trying to think of really inventive insults for the inevitable time when the new Labour ministerial team still do everything those drunken retards at the DfE ask of them to fuck children over.
Do you think, should Suella and Jenrick launch a military coup and declare martial law Amanda Spielman would remain in post?
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Essentially all Sunak's tiny handful of "achievements" are nothing more than reversions to the mean.
He's done f*** all, and can do f*** all, because he's a small, trivial man presiding over an ungovernable rabble so far into the fag end of the Tory period in office that you can smell the filter burning.
Just been reminded by the Guardian what an utter shit Jenrick is:
Jenrick entered the Commons as MP for Newark in Nottinghamshire in a 2014 by-election, Press Association reminds us.
Theresa May promoted him to a Treasury minister in January 2018 and he was made housing secretary by Boris Johnson when he took office in July 2019.
But his time around the cabinet table ended in controversy, when he was sacked after a string of high-profile and damaging accusations. His departure followed the unlawful approval of a Tory donor’s housing development and eyebrow-raising journeys during lockdown.
Johnson stuck by Jenrick despite anger over his approval of media mogul Richard Desmond’s 1,500-home Westferry Printworks development in east London. The permission came the day before a new council community levy would have cost Desmond’s company an extra £40m. Jenrick later had to quash his own approval, conceding the decision was “unlawful” due to “apparent bias”.
There was also criticism over Jenrick’s decision to travel 150 miles from his London property to his Herefordshire home, and then journeying for more than an hour to visit his parents in Shropshire while the country was in Covid lockdown. He later lost his post in a reshuffle.
Regardless of what happens in Rwanda all UK courts have to accept it’s a safe country . They could effectively start executing asylum seekers and the country would still be classed as safe .
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
But the lesson of Brown is the longer you wait, the worse the outcome.
If you lose power either way that may not be that big a dissuader. A big loss or a really big loss is all the same to any ambitious Tory knowing they will be out of power regardless.
Plus, while Brown did lose he was not that far away from a chance of holding on to power, which after 13 years in power is not a terrible outcome.
Brown actually recovered a bit as anger and shock at the financial crash mellowed a bit and he got a tiny bit of credit from some for getting us through the storm.
Problem for the Tories is that Sunak had that chance and squandered it badly. If when he got in - his point of maximum power and least resistance from critics - he'd told his party some home truths and tried to reclaim the mantle of at least being a responsible govt., getting us through a tricky moment then it might've been worth waiting a la Brown until anger over his predecessors dissipated a bit and had won some people's trust back.
As it is, whether it's because he's a terrible politician, his party is so unmanageable that he only has bad options, or a bit of both, he's just toxified himself and it may well get worse. The Tories won't be thanked for another year of lame duck posturing that only advertises how they've failed so badly, even on their own terms.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
I'm trying to think of really inventive insults for the inevitable time when the new Labour ministerial team still do everything those drunken retards at the DfE ask of them to fuck children over.
Do you think, should Suella and Jenrick launch a military coup and declare martial law Amanda Spielman would remain in post?
She leaves at the end of the month.
More than ten years too late, unfortunately, and the damage she has done (probably without meaning to) may well be irreversible* but at least she's out.
Probably she will pop up again as chief executive of an academy chain on stupid money, but at least the damage will be limited to the schools in that chain.
*Certainly it is for Ruth Perry and I note OFSTED have been taking lessons from the Post Office in how to handle statutory inquiries.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Your first paragraph is because of a shortage of GPs, who naturally gravitate to less demanding areas with a good lifestyle. There are always a few idealists, but generally inner city GP is more demanding and worse paid (as harder to hit targets), so harder to fill posts.
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.
I mean - I realise it's to do with a lack of funding. But I'm not sure that addresses the point of a lack of planning and resource allocation going right back to the New Labour years. Maybe you can believe Labour just 'whoopsie' didn't realise that flooding poorer areas with cheap labour (see what I did there) and not resourcing it in terms of health, education or housing might lead to some bad outcomes. Maybe you can believe the Tories deliberately did realise it but didn't care.
Either rosette - poor people are being let down, ill-educated, ill-served and dying young.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Essentially all Sunak's tiny handful of "achievements" are nothing more than reversions to the mean.
He's done f*** all, and can do f*** all, because he's a small, trivial man presiding over an ungovernable rabble so far into the fag end of the Tory period in office that you can smell the filter burning.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Your first paragraph is because of a shortage of GPs, who naturally gravitate to less demanding areas with a good lifestyle. There are always a few idealists, but generally inner city GP is more demanding and worse paid (as harder to hit targets), so harder to fill posts.
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.
I mean - I realise it's to do with a lack of funding. But I'm not sure that addresses the point of a lack of planning and resource allocation going right back to the New Labour years. Maybe you can believe Labour just 'whoopsie' didn't realise that flooding poorer areas with cheap labour (see what I did there) and not resourcing it in terms of health, education or housing might lead to some bad outcomes. Maybe you can believe the Tories deliberately did realise it but didn't care.
Either rosette - poor people are being let down, ill-educated, ill-served and dying young.
But Labour have not been in power for 13 years. How can you blame them?
Particularly while saying that a few years ago you could get an appointment.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Your first paragraph is because of a shortage of GPs, who naturally gravitate to less demanding areas with a good lifestyle. There are always a few idealists, but generally inner city GP is more demanding and worse paid (as harder to hit targets), so harder to fill posts.
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.
I mean - I realise it's to do with a lack of funding. But I'm not sure that addresses the point of a lack of planning and resource allocation going right back to the New Labour years. Maybe you can believe Labour just 'whoopsie' didn't realise that flooding poorer areas with cheap labour (see what I did there) and not resourcing it in terms of health, education or housing might lead to some bad outcomes. Maybe you can believe the Tories deliberately did realise it but didn't care.
Either rosette - poor people are being let down, ill-educated, ill-served and dying young.
The Tories have had 13 years to fix the “problem” (if it is one) you describe. This whole “both sides are responsible” schtick doesn’t work anymore.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
Is that the official line of the modern Tory party? I'm not entirely sure it's been focus grouped enough if it is.
Well, it must be. HYUFD was all over INHERITANCE INHERITANCE for weeks, and he's suddenly pivoted to FURRIN IMMIGRATION as if Epping was being swamped by folk from Waltham Abbey and the Parish Council were manning roadblocks on the Theydon Bois road. Must be what CCHQ are sending out as the plat de la semaine.
Regardless of what happens in Rwanda all UK courts have to accept it’s a safe country . They could effectively start executing asylum seekers and the country would still be classed as safe .
No, step back a bit. The absurdity of the Rwanda Bill: The bill isn't legal under the ECHR - as stated by the Home Secretary Rwanda won't implement any deal which is illegal under treaty Bill cannot clear parliament to become law before the election unless the government caves in and makes it legal under the ECHR
If it is legal under the ECHR we can't deport people to Rwanda. If it isn't legal under the ECHR Rwanda won't accept people and won't become law anyway.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
Is that the official line of the modern Tory party? I'm not entirely sure it's been focus grouped enough if it is.
Well, it must be. HYUFD was all over INHERITANCE INHERITANCE for weeks, and he's suddenly pivoted to FURRIN IMMIGRATION as if Epping was being swamped by folk from Waltham Abbey and the Parish Council were manning roadblocks on the Theydon Bois road. Must be what CCHQ are sending out as the plat de la semaine.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I presume you'll be giving the incoming Labour Government a suitable honeymoon - 7 days, 7 hours, 7 minutes or 7 seconds?
Seriously, any new Government will be able to get away with blaming its predecessors for a while. The Blair/Brown Governments get plenty of blame on here for what's happened with the country and they were a long time ago.
The truth is the Conservative Party has led the Government of this country for thirteen and a half years - that's time to make progress on even the most intractable issues and yet here we are...with Conservative supporters getting ready to blame the next Government.
It’s arguably something else they’ve picked up from the US right. Actual practical policy making is a very poor relation to doing down their political opponents.
It’s an open question as to whether Labour prove any better in government, but they’ve yet to plumb anything like the depths the Tories are currently managing.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Your first paragraph is because of a shortage of GPs, who naturally gravitate to less demanding areas with a good lifestyle. There are always a few idealists, but generally inner city GP is more demanding and worse paid (as harder to hit targets), so harder to fill posts.
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.
I mean - I realise it's to do with a lack of funding. But I'm not sure that addresses the point of a lack of planning and resource allocation going right back to the New Labour years. Maybe you can believe Labour just 'whoopsie' didn't realise that flooding poorer areas with cheap labour (see what I did there) and not resourcing it in terms of health, education or housing might lead to some bad outcomes. Maybe you can believe the Tories deliberately did realise it but didn't care.
Either rosette - poor people are being let down, ill-educated, ill-served and dying young.
But Labour have not been in power for 13 years. How can you blame them?
Particularly while saying that a few years ago you could get an appointment.
Did I say that?
On your Labour point - is 13 years now the cut-off for guilt-free policy decisions? 'The tories have been out of power for years - how can we blame them for the policy fall-out of the 1980s and 90s?'
Loving watching the Liverpool game on the TV, with the City game playing on my Laptop, all legal and all for no extra cost beyond my Prime membership we have for other things anyway - and half a dozen other live games available to stream too if anyone wants to watch such lower league rubbish as Man Utd v Chelsea etc
Meanwhile Sky/TNT etc still don't show simultaneous Premier League games live.
Its a shame Amazon have lost the rights in the next package, but its even more insane given how expensive packages are for the football that its not standard that all Premier League games can be legally watched live. They can in so many other countries, but not this one, its utter madness.
I am finally coming round to the idea of a May election. The only Tory hope now is huge Budget tax cuts and a dash to the country. And let's not begin to pretend they care about fiscal constraints, headroom etc. They don't. This is desperation time.
Unless the polls have narrowed dramatically by May, Sunak is not going to risk giving up 6 months as PM
Unless he can’t bear the thought of another 6 months as PM.
I can't bear the thought of another 6 months of Sunak as PM and I doubt I'm alone.
Why don't we have a vote on it?
We Tories didn't get a choice on 6 more months of Brown as PM in late 2009, so tough your turn now to have a PM in the final dregs for a year or so
But the lesson of Brown is the longer you wait, the worse the outcome.
Brown, to be fair to him, got a UK hung parliament in 2010 and won a majority in Scotland which was better than Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2019 managed.
Couple more seats and it could have been Lab/LibDem, not Con/LibDem.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
I'm really looking forward to slagging off Labour ministers again.
It will be an interesting dynamic. As much as many on here despise the current incumbents, I suspect quite a few also enjoy ripping apart everything they do, whether fair or not. While Labour will get some honeymoon, the problems the country faces will not magically improve when Starmer kisses Charles ring (is that what happens?).
No, he has to kiss his hand, though not actually a requirement. Though some PMs have, I think it has been documented.
Hopefully he doesn’t mistake one of the royal digits for a chippolata and do a Gollum at the Crack of Doom.
The problem with immigrants is not the immigrants, it is the lack of increasing services to account for the extra numbers whether schools, gps, housing etc.
I have no link to give but my suspicion is that probably in richer areas number of residents to all these services has probably not changed much because most immigrants when new tend to live in poorer areas.
The middle classes have never had an issue with high immigration as it doesn't affect them they just get cheaper plumbers. Reason for suspicion friends in the leafy middle class areas for example see little change in getting gp appointments...people like me living in the poor areas even before covid went from about 3 days for a gp appointment to 3 weeks
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two. It quite often takes me over a week just to get through to mine by phone (not to mention my repeat prescription seemingly being an optional afterthought and I need to spend 2-3 days a month chasing it up).
Schools similarly seem to be overwhelmed by an influx of younger immigrants who have had kids and zero planning/funding seems to have been allocated. (Or, in my worst moments - I imagine the funding has been 'equally' spread so now middle-class kids gets even more of the pie, relatively. But I should be ashamed of myself for such thoughts...)
Your first paragraph is because of a shortage of GPs, who naturally gravitate to less demanding areas with a good lifestyle. There are always a few idealists, but generally inner city GP is more demanding and worse paid (as harder to hit targets), so harder to fill posts.
Paragraph 2 is a result of this government shifting funds to leafy areas from more deprived areas. Sunak boasted of this when campaigning for leadership.
I mean - I realise it's to do with a lack of funding. But I'm not sure that addresses the point of a lack of planning and resource allocation going right back to the New Labour years. Maybe you can believe Labour just 'whoopsie' didn't realise that flooding poorer areas with cheap labour (see what I did there) and not resourcing it in terms of health, education or housing might lead to some bad outcomes. Maybe you can believe the Tories deliberately did realise it but didn't care.
Either rosette - poor people are being let down, ill-educated, ill-served and dying young.
The Tories have had 13 years to fix the “problem” (if it is one) you describe. This whole “both sides are responsible” schtick doesn’t work anymore.
I'm not singling out the tories. I'm arguing (I realise pointlessly) that the poor are suffering regardless of which party has the reigns. And I don't see any particular signs of that changing. Which makes me terribly sad.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
How can a party that can’t even manage itself manage the country? We’re being governed by the ungovernable.
They have weaponised ignorance and stupidity for votes. Their people expect that we can Stop the Boats.
Why can't we just deport people to Rwanda? That we don't have the resources to catch all the boats doesn't matter That we don't have anywhere to intern them doesn't matter That we don't have enough Home Office officials to process them doesn't matter That we can't render them through the courts due to cuts doesn't matter That Rwanda can only take a fraction of them doesn't matter That Rwanda won't take any if we break the ECHR treaty doesn't matter Why can't we just deport people to Rwanda?
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
I'd rather we hammer Big Food. Those fuckers are poisoning us whilst raking in billions.
Big Food, no, locally-owned takeaways do more damage. I live in a town of 9,000 people. I can count 10 takeaways that do home deliveries.
But do not they depend on a supply of mass-produced pre-prepared food? Edit: and/or the ingredients.
Maybe not so much the straight fish and chips people. But burgers, pizzas etc.
But portion size is down to them. When I buy a "pierce the lid in several places and microwave for 5 minutes" meal, there will be half the container for curry and the other half for rice. At a takeaway you get a container of each , i.e. twice the amount.
Oh, really? Never had one of those nukem meals myself.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Essentially all Sunak's tiny handful of "achievements" are nothing more than reversions to the mean.
He's done f*** all, and can do f*** all, because he's a small, trivial man presiding over an ungovernable rabble so far into the fag end of the Tory period in office that you can smell the filter burning.
Shall we put you down as a Don't Know?
I'll make the call now - Sunak is the worst of the post-2010 five. And I include that one and the other one.
Drowning us all in a warm, shallow, yellow puddle of his own mediocrity.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 4m Ultimately Jenrick takes decision that without pulling out of ECHR, the plan has no chance of success and so he can’t support it. Says this emergency legislation the last chance to deliver commitment to stop the boats.
Any sane government would be saying "This year, we've cut the numbers arriving by boat by a third. And while the battle is not yet won, things are moving in the right direction, and we're going to cut numbers by another third next year. Don't let Labour fuck this up."
Instead, to anyone who doesn't actually know what the numbers look like, you'd think they were failing.
This is the first dying government I think I’ve seen where Number 10 has just completely lost control of the messaging. Even in the nadir of Majors government, or Browns, or when under May the Tories were basically ungovernable, you could still trust the Cabinet Office to at least try to present a consistent and positive narrative.
Now it just feels like everyone has given up and doesn’t really want to do this anymore.
I don't agree. I worked in Whitehall in the dying days of the Brown government, and the stench of death then was remarkably similar to now. It took months to get the simplest decisions, nobody wanted to do any long term thinking (well, even less than usual), the senior civil servants were wondering what the next minister would be like and the political staff spent all their time on their CVs. But I think with time we have forgotten just how dismal that cretin was.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
A few minor points: 1. What Starmer did was legal according to the Boris law 2. What Boris did was illegal according to the Boris law
The person to blame is Boris. Not Starmer for 'getting off on a technicality' by means of not breaking the law. I mean, what an awful technicality. We wanted to convict that bastard Starmer and we stopped by the ridiculous technicality of him not actually having done anything illegal. Bastard!
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
A few minor points: 1. What Starmer did was legal according to the Boris law 2. What Boris did was illegal according to the Boris law
The person to blame is Boris. Not Starmer for 'getting off on a technicality' by means of not breaking the law. I mean, what an awful technicality. We wanted to convict that bastard Starmer and we stopped by the ridiculous technicality of him not actually having done anything illegal. Bastard!
You're not stupid, you cant have misread it that badly
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
A few minor points: 1. What Starmer did was legal according to the Boris law 2. What Boris did was illegal according to the Boris law
The person to blame is Boris. Not Starmer for 'getting off on a technicality' by means of not breaking the law. I mean, what an awful technicality. We wanted to convict that bastard Starmer and we stopped by the ridiculous technicality of him not actually having done anything illegal. Bastard!
You're not stupid, you cant have misread it that badly
That's what we said to Johnson.
Well, apart from the 'you're not stupid' part, of course.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
Working meals were allowed at the time otherwise Durham police would have issued a FPN . Legal is legal . I doubt laws would have been brought in that only effected MPs given the likely public furore . Bozo oversaw party central . No one can deny that.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
It will be quite funny coming on here in 18 months time and seeing several regular posters trying to defend Labour's attempts at immigration control, which will shortly (and absolutely) become their problem.
Labour will probably be trumpeting the decline in the number of small boats... that was entirely the result of measures already enacted.
Yep. Plenty on here just want to cheer on their own team and trash talk the other side.
Indeed.
But my point is more that the Conservative Party seems intent on trashing its achievements.
Have they sorted the small boats issue?
No.
Have they made significant progress this year?
Yes! If you compare the last six months of arrivals to the same six months in 2022, then numbers are down 40%. And the numbers keep dropping. Now, some of this is weather, although that can't explain why the drop seems to happen week after week, and irrespective of winds and rain.
But the government has also (a) done a better job with cooperating with the French, and (b) is simply better organized at collecting people when they arrive and getting them straight into immigration centers. This second issue should not be underestimated: it means that the pull of the UK's informal economy is much diminished.
Essentially all Sunak's tiny handful of "achievements" are nothing more than reversions to the mean.
He's done f*** all, and can do f*** all, because he's a small, trivial man presiding over an ungovernable rabble so far into the fag end of the Tory period in office that you can smell the filter burning.
Shall we put you down as a Don't Know?
I'll make the call now - Sunak is the worst of the post-2010 five. And I include that one and the other one.
Drowning us all in a warm, shallow, yellow puddle of his own mediocrity.
Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak. Like watching a ball bouncing down a staircase.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
A few minor points: 1. What Starmer did was legal according to the Boris law 2. What Boris did was illegal according to the Boris law
The person to blame is Boris. Not Starmer for 'getting off on a technicality' by means of not breaking the law. I mean, what an awful technicality. We wanted to convict that bastard Starmer and we stopped by the ridiculous technicality of him not actually having done anything illegal. Bastard!
You're not stupid, you cant have misread it that badly
What did I say about how the Tories had weaponised ignorance and stupidity in their supporters...? *waves*
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
In June 2021 Sir Keir was saying the Johnson Variant was going to cause a summer of chaos in the NHS and it was utterly reckless to loosen any of the restrictions, such as letting people socialise, yet he thought it was ok for him to socialise… and no one cares!
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
I think he was hypocritical, tbh. A bit like labour wearing masks in parliament but not at their conference because reasons. A lot of games were played over covid by a lot of people.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Personally I think Starmer was an utter pain during Covid. Self righteous, contrarian, insufferable.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Personally I think Starmer was an utter pain during Covid. Self righteous, contrarian, insufferable.
He has markedly improved since.
I worry that Starmer has markedly improved by not supporting any policies and simply standing back while the Tories self-destruct.
Between Starmer and Sunak, Starmer probably should be the PM. But I worry about what sort of PM he will be and what he'd do.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Personally I think Starmer was an utter pain during Covid. Self righteous, contrarian, insufferable.
He has markedly improved since.
I worry that Starmer has markedly improved by not supporting any policies and simply standing back while the Tories self-destruct.
Between Starmer and Sunak, Starmer probably should be the PM. But I worry about what sort of PM he will be and what he'd do.
Won't be the first time someone won by being vague and plausible seeming, leaving people with little firm impression about what they might actually do.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
How much is immigration an issue because the Tories keep talking about it? Have they created a rod for their own back? If they, and supportive media, stopped talking about immigration, maybe they wouldn't be losing voters to Reform?
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Personally I think Starmer was an utter pain during Covid. Self righteous, contrarian, insufferable.
He has markedly improved since.
I worry that Starmer has markedly improved by not supporting any policies and simply standing back while the Tories self-destruct.
Between Starmer and Sunak, Starmer probably should be the PM. But I worry about what sort of PM he will be and what he'd do.
Won't be the first time someone won by being vague and plausible seeming, leaving people with little firm impression about what they might actually do.
In practice, finances will constrain much of what he can do, particularly in the first couple of years, so I wouldn't expect a dramatic change in policy.
What he is skilled at is change management. He has transformed the Labour Party from a fratricidal bunch of squabbling ideologues into a government in waiting in just 3 years. His government will have a hundred or more new MPs that owe their seats to him, and there is no equivalent of the 1922 to depose him.
If he can do half as well at change management for the country he will be a striking contrast to other recent PMs.
How much is immigration an issue because the Tories keep talking about it? Have they created a rod for their own back? If they, and supportive media, stopped talking about immigration, maybe they wouldn't be losing voters to Reform?
Partly this, but the effects of increasing the population every year are real as well.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
He was not socialising. He was working. Had he been socialising, he would have been fined.
How much is immigration an issue because the Tories keep talking about it? Have they created a rod for their own back? If they, and supportive media, stopped talking about immigration, maybe they wouldn't be losing voters to Reform?
Over last half decade the Conservative Party has invented an entirely new political strategy which I would call the “boomerang wedge”. It consists of raising the salience of an issue you think will embarrass the opposition and then discovering that you can’t cope with it yourself
How much is immigration an issue because the Tories keep talking about it? Have they created a rod for their own back? If they, and supportive media, stopped talking about immigration, maybe they wouldn't be losing voters to Reform?
I don't think it is the case that it would not be an issue at all, I don't think political parties bring up things that have no resonance with their base at least (even if they can overemphasise such things by assuming the entirely public feel the same way).
However, they've also been able to side step or fail on the issue of immigration before without being electorally punished, and thus de-emphasise it. I assume they are not doing that now despite failing on the issue because they do not feel they have anything else they can focus on instead, which is worrying for them.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
He was not socialising. He was working. Had he been socialising, he would have been fined.
I think the lines blurred somewhat. As they did, but rather more egregiously, in No 10.
This Villa v Man City game is absolutely remarkable, enjoying it so far even more than the Liverpool game (a joy of being able to watch simultaneous Live Premier League games).
Villa's goal just now was the fifteenth consecutive shot by Villa without a single shot in that time by City. Utterly remarkable statistic.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
“I am astonished by the deluded personal ambition of some people” one MP tells me.
“It’s all about post-election leadership now” says another.
But one reckons the right of the party are “kicking the table legs, but they’ll stay in place”.
Overwhelming sense of despair from all wings.
A fourth MP tells me, “Ruining Christmas, because we just want everyone to hate us as much as we obviously hate ourselves.”
Another is frustrated by the “needless drama”.
Delusion and personal ambition worked fine for Boris; indeed it got him several years in the top job. Part of the Conservatives' problem is that a lot of them have looked at what happened in the 2010s and concluded "yeah, that's the way to do it".
Similar anecdata here. Friends in wealthy areas pretty much can see a GP in a day or two.
It's not always like that. The Village I live in is an extremely nice area, residents generally very wealthy. We have two GP surgeries with between them six partners and usually 3 or 4 other doctors (trainees?) covering a population of circa 4000.
It still takes two months to get an non-urgent appointment. Prescriptions take three days and are often late or lost. The local pharmacy gets a nice gift from my family each Christmas because the staff are extremely pro-active at chasing up repeat prescriptions they know should have been issued by a certain day, but haven't been.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
Christ are you still whinging about this? Let it go.
Actually, food is the one place where I would say @kyf_100 has a point about dystopian modern life
The worldwide plague of obesity is not due to some global collapse in willpower, it is because the food industry has learned to create sweet fatty foods that we all find horrifyingly addictive, and which give us cravings for more. It is hideous. In my widely travelled lifetime I have watched one country after another fall victim to this, obesity is now so ubiquitous it is a shock when you reach a country which doesn’t suffer it - Cambodia is an example, Thailand is not: they are getting fat
On my recent visit to France I noticed it there, too: the French are also getting fat
We desperately need these weight loss drugs to work: as a species. Or we fiercely regulate the food industry
When it comes to addictions very heavy regulation drives a huge industry very profitably underground, as in the drugs trade, with immense costs to all the rest of us.
The difficulty with food in a prosperous society is that the basis of the problem stuff is in an excess of generally essential stuff - sugars and fats in particular, combined with particular stuff, like chocolate/cocoa products which in themselves are harmless.
It is perfectly possible to get to be 190 kilos with a BMI of 80 on cheese and chocolate without much assistance from anything more exotic.
Regulation will make very little difference, even if it bans certain particular formulations. It can't ban sugars, chocolate/cocoa and dairy/fats any more than it can ban water.
Yes, I agree. Prohibition generally does not work, it would be the last act of a desperate government
That’s why we must pray that Ozempic works and doesn’t give you thyroid cancer
Food is, I think, different to the general rules on prohibition in that it's needed in such quantities it can't be produced underground. The question is more whether regulation can be made to work both in enforcement (probably but not easy) and on cost (more doubtful). High fat processed foods are relatively cheap. Who's going to be the politician slapping 20% or whatever on the weekly shop?
The idea that 'fat' is to blame for making us fat is a very discredited notion that sadly many people are still beholden to - it's a generational thing. This demonstrates the danger of big changes in public policy on food - they could (ans probably would) be based on inaccurate information and therefore make things worse.
The issue here is not the quantity of food we're consuming, it's the quality - there isn't any. I heard from a nutritionalist recently (I have no corroboration for this, it's just being discussed) that in the 1950s you could get 100% of your vitamin A for a day by consuming a peach. Today, it would take 30 peaches. Is it any wonder that when we fail to give our bodies what they've asked for, they carry on asking?
Hey LG
Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Such a big reduction seems rather unlikely to me. You've already said you are just presenting it 'as heard', so fair enough.
The whole nutrition requirements thing is pretty opaque in my view. Very important, but it's a minefield of self-interested statements.
It seemed extreme to me too, but at the same time, not terribly surprising. I am not sure of how vitamins form, but with minerals it's a simple case of minerals in, minerals out. If the produce is grown in poor soil, mostly by means of nitrogen fertilisers to add bulk, it will contain mostly nitrogen and very little of anything else. Another outcome would be a case of transubstantiation.
There's a vast amount we can do to improve the quality of our basic diets, and see how that helps the health and wellbeing of the general populace. I'm convinced a lot of stuff like obesity would decline significantly.
As vitamin A is a fully organic compound, mineral depletion is unlikely to result in such a huge change. I suspect you have been misinformed by someone with an agenda.
I never said anything about how vitamin A is formed, nor offered the statement about peaches and vitamin A as anything other than a overheard opinion. That's all made very clear in my posts, so I suspect you're being a twat.
Just one sliver of evidence that the vitamin A content of peaches has declined by 97% would be good. Extraordinary claims and all that...
Why would I provide a slither of evidence when I haven't even made the claim? Read. The. Post.
@Ominium asked: Hey LG Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
You answered: The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Looks like a claim to me.
Yes, the claim that peaches have declined in nutritional merit is a claim I'm happy to stand by. The claim that they have declined in vitamin A by 97% is NOT a claim made above, nor a claim I've made anywhere. Nice try though.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
Christ are you still whinging about this? Let it go.
How much is immigration an issue because the Tories keep talking about it? Have they created a rod for their own back? If they, and supportive media, stopped talking about immigration, maybe they wouldn't be losing voters to Reform?
I don't think it is the case that it would not be an issue at all, I don't think political parties bring up things that have no resonance with their base at least (even if they can overemphasise such things by assuming the entirely public feel the same way).
However, they've also been able to side step or fail on the issue of immigration before without being electorally punished, and thus de-emphasise it. I assume they are not doing that now despite failing on the issue because they do not feel they have anything else they can focus on instead, which is worrying for them.
Rishi made stopping the boats one of his five pledges, and at that point the die was cast. The party knew that while they could probably fudge the economic figures and do something in extremis on waiting lists, stopping the boats would be a very visible failure if they got it wrong. And they got it wrong, hence the mounting panic.
How much is immigration an issue because the Tories keep talking about it? Have they created a rod for their own back? If they, and supportive media, stopped talking about immigration, maybe they wouldn't be losing voters to Reform?
I don't think it is the case that it would not be an issue at all, I don't think political parties bring up things that have no resonance with their base at least (even if they can overemphasise such things by assuming the entirely public feel the same way).
However, they've also been able to side step or fail on the issue of immigration before without being electorally punished, and thus de-emphasise it. I assume they are not doing that now despite failing on the issue because they do not feel they have anything else they can focus on instead, which is worrying for them.
Rishi made stopping the boats one of his five pledges, and at that point the die was cast. The party knew that while they could probably fudge the economic figures and do something in extremis on waiting lists, stopping the boats would be a very visible failure if they got it wrong. And they got it wrong, hence the mounting panic.
I'm just amazed they ever imagined it was a workable policy. Did they just fall into the trap of thinking announcing a policy automatically makes it happen?
“I am astonished by the deluded personal ambition of some people” one MP tells me.
“It’s all about post-election leadership now” says another.
But one reckons the right of the party are “kicking the table legs, but they’ll stay in place”.
Overwhelming sense of despair from all wings.
A fourth MP tells me, “Ruining Christmas, because we just want everyone to hate us as much as we obviously hate ourselves.”
Another is frustrated by the “needless drama”.
Delusion and personal ambition worked fine for Boris; indeed it got him several years in the top job. Part of the Conservatives' problem is that a lot of them have looked at what happened in the 2010s and concluded "yeah, that's the way to do it".
Shame Boris seems to remember so little of it.
Jenrick has ambitions to be, checks Electoral calculus, the shadow MP for Newark.
And so I wonder at this stage, how much is greater personal ambition. and how much is a personal tack to the right to shore up the Reform minded vote in his own patch.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
No he didn't. Starmer called for a tougher lockdown that January when the government was fannying about (it of course did in the end) and opposed lifting of lockdown conditions early, so he was on the cautious side of the argument - but he wasn't going around demanding tougher restrictions in May 2021 rather, rightly or wrongly, he'd been saying the existing tough rules shouldn't be loosened too early. Boris' Captain Handsight jibe came from the fact Starmer rarely took a big position on what should happen unless it was pretty blindingly obvious that it would.
It would have been vaguely daft to as he had to take part in an election campaign (the reason he and his team were together to have that beer) - as he'd be waltzing around campaigning while saying the thing you were doing was dangerous.
As an aside, if it had only been one similarly vaguely dubious event that happened in No. 10 Boris absolutely would have got away with it (he sort of did anyway, given it was Pincher that did for him). But the perception that it was regular practice to just ignore the rules because those in No. 10 saw themselves as a special case that was hugely damaging.
If that Gemini video is running in real time the Google have made a huge step up from Bard. We had AWS give us a demo of Claude today and it's nowhere near as good as the video Gemini. I think Google finally have the product to to beat.
Just been reminded by the Guardian what an utter shit Jenrick is:
Jenrick entered the Commons as MP for Newark in Nottinghamshire in a 2014 by-election, Press Association reminds us.
Theresa May promoted him to a Treasury minister in January 2018 and he was made housing secretary by Boris Johnson when he took office in July 2019.
But his time around the cabinet table ended in controversy, when he was sacked after a string of high-profile and damaging accusations. His departure followed the unlawful approval of a Tory donor’s housing development and eyebrow-raising journeys during lockdown.
Johnson stuck by Jenrick despite anger over his approval of media mogul Richard Desmond’s 1,500-home Westferry Printworks development in east London. The permission came the day before a new council community levy would have cost Desmond’s company an extra £40m. Jenrick later had to quash his own approval, conceding the decision was “unlawful” due to “apparent bias”.
There was also criticism over Jenrick’s decision to travel 150 miles from his London property to his Herefordshire home, and then journeying for more than an hour to visit his parents in Shropshire while the country was in Covid lockdown. He later lost his post in a reshuffle.
Absolutely well-deserved victory for Aston Villa. One of the best games I've seen in a long time - they completely dominated Manchester City and thoroughly deserve the victory.
- Tory MP letters going in (but talk of a confidence vote overblown)
- Talk among Tories of early general election has risen BUT, conversely, if Sunak can keep a lid on the chaos, the chances of going long til next autumn have increased
Absolutely well-deserved victory for Aston Villa. One of the best games I've seen in a long time - they completely dominated Manchester City and thoroughly deserve the victory.
I got a tip from a mate about Villa. 50/1 a few days ago.
The betting reveals the bizarre state of the Tory party at this moment. William Hills have a market on the next Tory leader. The top white male also currently an MP is 11th in the betting, Barclay at 50/1.
Ahead of him are: Farage, Boris, Cleverley, Lord Frost and Lord Cameron.
I assumed Jenrick had resigned because he didn't like the policy, but I've just found out it's the opposite: he didn't think it had gone far enough.
or, he resigned to be available for the leadership election.
These people are deluded.
Or, if he's smart, he resigned now when he can blame Sunak for the failure of the policy, rather than waiting around to be the mug holding the baby when the nappy fills with poo.
Because, for all the sound and fury and £££ sent to Rwanda, this isn't going to actually happen, is it?
To some extent, farmers have just been giving consumers what they want.
For example, around 80 years ago, the federal government had to change the directions for canning tomatoes -- because the newer varieties were less acid than the older ones. (Consumer tastes change, and in some supermarkets I can now buy "heirloom" tomatoes, and brownish Kumato tomatoes that are supposedly high in nutrients.)
Similarly, when Cambell's found out that some customers did not like yellow chunks of carrots in their soups, they got plant breeders to eliminate the yellow cores that I remember from my youth. (I'm inclined to think that was a mistake, since the different colors probably have different mixes of nutrients.)
All that is -- in my opinion -- dwarfed by the improvement in nutrition from trade. Tomorrow, for example, I will have, with my oatmeal, a banana from Central America, and blueberries from Peru.
The oatmeal, from the supermarket giant Kroger, includes apples, walnuts, and raisins. It cost me $1.50 for a box with 10 packets in it.
(For the record: For safety reasons I tend to avoid "organic" produce, since it may be contaminated with bacteria from the animal wastes that are used for fertilizer. I would be especially careful with leafy vegetables like lettuce.)
The simplest answer is to repurpose the Isle of Man. We already own it, and it's punishment enough for anyone to spend a weekend there, let alone be incarcerated there.
Comments
Hey LG Are you saying that peaches have declined in nutritional merit, or that the requirements have increased?
You answered:
The former. A consequence of demineralised soils, nitrogen fertilisers, and any other practises prioritising bulk and yield over nutrient content.
Looks like a claim to me.
He's done f*** all, and can do f*** all, because he's a small, trivial man presiding over an ungovernable rabble so far into the fag end of the Tory period in office that you can smell the filter burning.
NEW: In what reads like a fairly tetchy letter, Sunak has accused Jenrick of a "fundamental misunderstanding".
He insists migration bill "will work" and going any further would lose Rwandan support.
"No point in passing a law that would leave us with nowhere to send people to."
https://x.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732503908478496902?s=20
Jenrick entered the Commons as MP for Newark in Nottinghamshire in a 2014 by-election, Press Association reminds us.
Theresa May promoted him to a Treasury minister in January 2018 and he was made housing secretary by Boris Johnson when he took office in July 2019.
But his time around the cabinet table ended in controversy, when he was sacked after a string of high-profile and damaging accusations. His departure followed the unlawful approval of a Tory donor’s housing development and eyebrow-raising journeys during lockdown.
Johnson stuck by Jenrick despite anger over his approval of media mogul Richard Desmond’s 1,500-home Westferry Printworks development in east London. The permission came the day before a new council community levy would have cost Desmond’s company an extra £40m. Jenrick later had to quash his own approval, conceding the decision was “unlawful” due to “apparent bias”.
There was also criticism over Jenrick’s decision to travel 150 miles from his London property to his Herefordshire home, and then journeying for more than an hour to visit his parents in Shropshire while the country was in Covid lockdown. He later lost his post in a reshuffle.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/dec/06/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-pmqs-conservatives-labour-uk-politics-latest#top-of-blog (20:41)
Regardless of what happens in Rwanda all UK courts have to accept it’s a safe country . They could effectively start executing asylum seekers and the country would still be classed as safe .
Problem for the Tories is that Sunak had that chance and squandered it badly. If when he got in - his point of maximum power and least resistance from critics - he'd told his party some home truths and tried to reclaim the mantle of at least being a responsible govt., getting us through a tricky moment then it might've been worth waiting a la Brown until anger over his predecessors dissipated a bit and had won some people's trust back.
As it is, whether it's because he's a terrible politician, his party is so unmanageable that he only has bad options, or a bit of both, he's just toxified himself and it may well get worse. The Tories won't be thanked for another year of lame duck posturing that only advertises how they've failed so badly, even on their own terms.
More than ten years too late, unfortunately, and the damage she has done (probably without meaning to) may well be irreversible* but at least she's out.
Probably she will pop up again as chief executive of an academy chain on stupid money, but at least the damage will be limited to the schools in that chain.
*Certainly it is for Ruth Perry and I note OFSTED have been taking lessons from the Post Office in how to handle statutory inquiries.
Either rosette - poor people are being let down, ill-educated, ill-served and dying young.
Particularly while saying that a few years ago you could get an appointment.
The bill isn't legal under the ECHR - as stated by the Home Secretary
Rwanda won't implement any deal which is illegal under treaty
Bill cannot clear parliament to become law before the election unless the government caves in and makes it legal under the ECHR
If it is legal under the ECHR we can't deport people to Rwanda.
If it isn't legal under the ECHR Rwanda won't accept people and won't become law anyway.
So the implications of the bill are irrelevant.
Actual practical policy making is a very poor relation to doing down their political opponents.
It’s an open question as to whether Labour prove any better in government, but they’ve yet to plumb anything like the depths the Tories are currently managing.
On your Labour point - is 13 years now the cut-off for guilt-free policy decisions? 'The tories have been out of power for years - how can we blame them for the policy fall-out of the 1980s and 90s?'
Meanwhile Sky/TNT etc still don't show simultaneous Premier League games live.
Its a shame Amazon have lost the rights in the next package, but its even more insane given how expensive packages are for the football that its not standard that all Premier League games can be legally watched live. They can in so many other countries, but not this one, its utter madness.
UNLV shooting: Police respond to active shooting on Las Vegas campus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67642512
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
Why can't we just deport people to Rwanda?
That we don't have the resources to catch all the boats doesn't matter
That we don't have anywhere to intern them doesn't matter
That we don't have enough Home Office officials to process them doesn't matter
That we can't render them through the courts due to cuts doesn't matter
That Rwanda can only take a fraction of them doesn't matter
That Rwanda won't take any if we break the ECHR treaty doesn't matter
Why can't we just deport people to Rwanda?
Drowning us all in a warm, shallow, yellow puddle of his own mediocrity.
1. What Starmer did was legal according to the Boris law
2. What Boris did was illegal according to the Boris law
The person to blame is Boris. Not Starmer for 'getting off on a technicality' by means of not breaking the law. I mean, what an awful technicality. We wanted to convict that bastard Starmer and we stopped by the ridiculous technicality of him not actually having done anything illegal. Bastard!
Well, apart from the 'you're not stupid' part, of course.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
That winning formula:
- take complex issue (Brexit, Northern Ireland, Asylum)
- tell everyone it’s simple, if England was sovereign 🏴
- demonise those raising rational objections
- resign when you get close to having to implement what you said was ‘easy’.
Rinse. Repeat.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/827734/police-say-three-injured-in-shooting-in-brussels-tbtb
He has markedly improved since.
Cooper doomed I fear.
Between Starmer and Sunak, Starmer probably should be the PM. But I worry about what sort of PM he will be and what he'd do.
What he is skilled at is change management. He has transformed the Labour Party from a fratricidal bunch of squabbling ideologues into a government in waiting in just 3 years. His government will have a hundred or more new MPs that owe their seats to him, and there is no equivalent of the 1922 to depose him.
If he can do half as well at change management for the country he will be a striking contrast to other recent PMs.
Over last half decade the Conservative Party has invented an entirely new political strategy which I would call the “boomerang wedge”. It consists of raising the salience of an issue you think will embarrass the opposition and then discovering that you can’t cope with it yourself
However, they've also been able to side step or fail on the issue of immigration before without being electorally punished, and thus de-emphasise it. I assume they are not doing that now despite failing on the issue because they do not feel they have anything else they can focus on instead, which is worrying for them.
Villa's goal just now was the fifteenth consecutive shot by Villa without a single shot in that time by City. Utterly remarkable statistic.
Conservative party in flux tonight.
“I am astonished by the deluded personal ambition of some people” one MP tells me.
“It’s all about post-election leadership now” says another.
But one reckons the right of the party are “kicking the table legs, but they’ll stay in place”.
Overwhelming sense of despair from all wings.
A fourth MP tells me, “Ruining Christmas, because we just want everyone to hate us as much as we obviously hate ourselves.”
Another is frustrated by the “needless drama”.
If it's not smoke and mirrors with loads of edits while the computation happens then this is absolutely brilliant.
GPT4 looks out of date already, which is pretty scary.
Shame Boris seems to remember so little of it.
It still takes two months to get an non-urgent appointment. Prescriptions take three days and are often late or lost. The local pharmacy gets a nice gift from my family each Christmas because the staff are extremely pro-active at chasing up repeat prescriptions they know should have been issued by a certain day, but haven't been.
And so I wonder at this stage, how much is greater personal ambition. and how much is a personal tack to the right to shore up the Reform minded vote in his own patch.
It would have been vaguely daft to as he had to take part in an election campaign (the reason he and his team were together to have that beer) - as he'd be waltzing around campaigning while saying the thing you were doing was dangerous.
As an aside, if it had only been one similarly vaguely dubious event that happened in No. 10 Boris absolutely would have got away with it (he sort of did anyway, given it was Pincher that did for him). But the perception that it was regular practice to just ignore the rules because those in No. 10 saw themselves as a special case that was hugely damaging.
Otherwise it's just a smarter tool for pushing the same ideas.
Did I say on here last night that they would win the league??
I still think they will.
- Tory MP letters going in (but talk of a confidence vote overblown)
- Talk among Tories of early general election has risen BUT, conversely, if Sunak can keep a lid on the chaos, the chances of going long til next autumn have increased
These people are deluded.
Ahead of him are: Farage, Boris, Cleverley, Lord Frost and Lord Cameron.
Is Cleverley value at 7/1?
Because, for all the sound and fury and £££ sent to Rwanda, this isn't going to actually happen, is it?
For example, around 80 years ago, the federal government had to change the directions for canning tomatoes -- because the newer varieties were less acid than the older ones. (Consumer tastes change, and in some supermarkets I can now buy "heirloom" tomatoes, and brownish Kumato tomatoes that are supposedly high in nutrients.)
Similarly, when Cambell's found out that some customers did not like yellow chunks of carrots in their soups, they got plant breeders to eliminate the yellow cores that I remember from my youth. (I'm inclined to think that was a mistake, since the different colors probably have different mixes of nutrients.)
All that is -- in my opinion -- dwarfed by the improvement in nutrition from trade. Tomorrow, for example, I will have, with my oatmeal, a banana from Central America, and blueberries from Peru.
The oatmeal, from the supermarket giant Kroger, includes apples, walnuts, and raisins. It cost me $1.50 for a box with 10 packets in it.
(For the record: For safety reasons I tend to avoid "organic" produce, since it may be contaminated with bacteria from the animal wastes that are used for fertilizer. I would be especially careful with leafy vegetables like lettuce.)
(CON government not Man City 😊)
Rishi Sunak has five days to take back control of the Tory party
https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1732527206021071046?s=20
Con38
Lab 36
LD 9
Grn 6
SNP 4
Ref 4