Why are Tories trying to throw the election? What do they know that we don’t? No one is this rubbish. It has to be a stitch up job..
They probably can.
Any party that's this far into government tends to be a bit light on the new talent front, and that's without the regular revolutions and purges.
Sunak and Gove are clearly Cabinet calibre, and Dave is a special case, but how many others would have had a sniff of a Cabinet position pre-2019?
Talking of which, here's the Health Secretary. Even if it's true, even if you think it's true, you don't go out of your way to piss people off like this.
'Doctors in training as I prefer to call them walked out of our negotiations'
Health Secretary Victoria Atkins spoke to #BBCBreakfast about the 72 hour junior doctors strike in England
I daresay Foxy can put me right on this, but isn't "Junior Doctors" a generic term for qualified doctors who could have been in service for up to a dozen years or so?
She does seem way out of her depth.
The approved term is "Postgraduate Doctors" or "Specialist Trainees" and "Foundation Trainees" but the BMA division is the "Junior Doctors Committee".
"Doctors in Training" isn't one that I have heard.
All barristers are juniors except silks, even if you were called 60 years ago. Some of the most interesting are the very senior juniors.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Let's not forget when your boy got flustered he hid in a fridge.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Spotify will soon generate whole songs based on user’s history, without even crediting a name (or will make up fake ones that sound different for every account). That’ll be the moment when artist music and music business will split as you’ve anticipate. https://twitter.com/phil_rouge/status/1737830408769970353
How do you mean? Kind of generic totally machine made songs of a genre it deduces you like from your listening history? I can't easily imagine that at all.
I am almost tempted to hear such music. In the last week I have listened to Seventies folk, Sixties girl groups, Eighties New Romantics, Australian Nu Punk, Roots Reggae and Gram Parsons.
Such a mashup would be either great or awful!
Aussie Punk is my new rabbit hole. Best played loud as feck.
Is Aussie punk - midnight oil, beds are burning type music? If so agree.
No it is a new genre, quite reminiscent of classic British punk of the Seventies at ground level. See the video that I linked to earlier.
We are really back to the Seventies. Decaying towns, arguments over Europe, economic stagnation, out of touch technocrat politicians, industrial unrest...now even a punk revival.
It's one of my more unexpected turns as an Indie kid to be sympathetic to the modest re-rise of punk. Didn't expect to spend my 50s listening to some of the stuff I'm now keeping an ear out for, albeit I still like some musicianship in and amongst (was always a Clash over Sex Pistols and all those others who tapped into the inherent crapness of the genre - lots now who are barely beyond being Half Man Half Biscuit. Only had brief contact with the Aussie stuff though.
A lot of stuff in the UK seems to be coming from the next size of red wall town down from the usually feted regional cities as well.
On the one had I do like seeing fresh young faces, and something other than variations of Rap, it does seem a bit unoriginal. On the other hand there does seem to be a more Gen Z feminist vibe and quirky lyrics to Nu Punk.
I suppose a lot of punk was reminiscent of early Eddy Cochrane, The Specials were Ska revivalist and there was a psychedelic revival in the Eighties, so maybe just nothing new under the sun.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Yeah but you actually are obsessed though. You're the only person in the universe who seems to think actually what SKS did was worse than what Johnson did. And you are convinced that soon Keir will be found out. Every post you make is about Keir Starmer or something involving him. It's got to the point that I can tell it's you before reading the name because it will inevitably be something pathetic about Keir Starmer has apparently done, usually involving a curry.
I am not sure the relevance of bringing up my mental health, which is brilliant BTW But I now know when you asked it wasn't a sincere question - and so that reflects a lot more badly on you that it does me.
Because of that, I'll leave it there. Have a good Christmas Sam.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/clarence-thomas-trump-supreme-court-cases-00132788 Consider the following hypothetical: Suppose Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s husband happened to be a well-known crypto advocate and an early investor in Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto exchange FTX. As you may have heard, the exchange collapsed , and SBF was recently convicted of criminal fraud ; he intends to appeal . Now suppose that the case ends up before the Supreme Court.
Under those circumstances, is there any question that Justice Jackson would need to recuse herself from the case? After all, her husband could be either a co-conspirator or a victim. Either way, he — and she, by extension — has an interest in the outcome of the prosecution.
I pose the hypothetical not because there is any reason to believe that is true — Justice Jackson’s husband, for the record, is a surgeon in Washington — but because it illustrates why Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from reviewing the Justice Department’s prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election , as well as this week’s Colorado state court ruling disqualifying Trump from appearing on the state’s primary ballot because he engaged in an “insurrection” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment…
...Congressional Democrats urged Thomas last week to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s criminal case. They argue that his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas could be a material witness in the prosecution as a result of her post-election support for keeping Trump in office.
Here is a better reason: Justice Thomas should recuse himself because Ginni Thomas — an apparent true believer in Trump’s election-fraud claims — is a victim of Trump’s alleged crimes. That means that both Ginni Thomas and Justice Thomas have a direct reputational stake in the outcome of the proceedings — one that further calls into serious question the justice’s ability to render an independent decision strictly on the merits of either case...
Justice Thomas doesn't even seem to want to bother pretending not to be compromised and/or corrupt. Decision makers at far lower levels would get into very serious trouble taking 'gifts' like him and remaining involved in matters either involving those giving him 'gifts', or remaining involved in matters which he or close family are deeply involved in, even if no 'gifts' are involved. It's some weird inverse where the more powerful and significant the individual the less they need to ensure their integrity is not called into question. And that pointing it out is unfair because the Supreme Court Justices should be beyond any comment or sanction.
It's the same as those arguments about how it might not be ok for every other officer of the United States to do crime X, but for the President it's fine.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Yeah but you actually are obsessed though. You're the only person in the universe who seems to think actually what SKS did was worse than what Johnson did. And you are convinced that soon Keir will be found out. Every post you make is about Keir Starmer or something involving him. It's got to the point that I can tell it's you before reading the name because it will inevitably be something pathetic about Keir Starmer has apparently done, usually involving a curry.
I am not sure the relevance of bringing up my mental health, which is brilliant BTW But I now know when you asked it wasn't a sincere question - and so that reflects a lot more badly on you that it does me.
Because of that, I'll leave it there. Have a good Christmas Sam.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Let's not forget when your boy got flustered he hid in a fridge.
Don’t keep mentioning it, you’ll be called obsessed
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
Win a historic victory promising to invest in and level up the North; winning scores of northern Labour seats in the process.
Spend the next 4.5 years doing sod all.
If I were a Tory MP in a red wall seat, or a red wall voter, I would feel utterly betrayed by those at the top of the Party.
The Tories deserve to lose the next election for many reasons, but this is a particularly good one.
I can’t believe people so many people were dumb enough, naive enough, to fall for it in the first place. Fucking elderly Red Wall Leavers, desperate for something positive to come from the smoking ashes of Brexit.
These people lived through the 80s, they saw the Tories gut these places. And 30 years later they eagerly swallowed the bullshit and queued up to put their tick in the Leave box and then for Johnson. All because they don’t like foreigners.
Well, they definitely know now that the Tories don’t give a flying fuck about the north. That Brexit was built on Tory lies. The NHS isn’t better. Food isn’t cheaper. There’s still fuel on VAT. There have been considerable downsides. Including the utter contempt the Tories have shown for the north.
It’s a shame we’ve had to suffer so much damage for the scales to fall from these people’s eyes.
Win a historic victory promising to invest in and level up the North; winning scores of northern Labour seats in the process.
Spend the next 4.5 years doing sod all.
If I were a Tory MP in a red wall seat, or a red wall voter, I would feel utterly betrayed by those at the top of the Party.
The Tories deserve to lose the next election for many reasons, but this is a particularly good one.
I can’t believe people so many people were dumb enough, naive enough, to fall for it in the first place. Fucking elderly Red Wall Leavers, desperate for something positive to come from the smoking ashes of Brexit.
These people lived through the 80s, they saw the Tories gut these places. And 30 years later they eagerly swallowed the bullshit and queued up to put their tick in the Leave box and then for Johnson. All because they don’t like foreigners.
Well, they definitely know now that the Tories don’t give a flying fuck about the north. That Brexit was built on Tory lies. The NHS isn’t better. Food isn’t cheaper. There’s still fuel on VAT. There have been considerable downsides. Including the utter contempt the Tories have shown for the north.
It’s a shame we’ve had to suffer so much damage for the scales to fall from these people’s eyes.
I don’t blame them. The truth is they’ve been let down by governments of every colour for decades. So why not take a punt on something new?
But they have been badly let down again, and I very much doubt many will be returning the Tory fold in the coming years. Don’t underestimate the mood for change in these areas though - it’s definitely now fertile ground for parties like Reform.
Precisely the point labour did nothing for them, so they voted tory, tories did nothing for them....why would the return to labour when labour also failed them.
Not quite - the rise in the Conservative vote share across many northern and midland seats began in 2001 and quietly picked up in every election from then on.
Why? Hardly Brexit - I think it's the sons and daughters of those who bought their Council houses under RTB in the early 1980s becoming home owners themselves and as often happens with home owners and mortgagees the politics shifts to the Conservative camp.
I suspect there's a corollary between rates of home ownership in the suburban and semi-rural north and midlands and Conservative vote share.
Labour also did do things for people - if you look at lots of attempts at regeneration they will date to the New Labour years. Issues are they were swimming against a tide that's been bad for smaller industrial and coastal towns across the developed west. Ran out of time and money, plus not every scheme had the desired effect.
It's also right that the idea of the left behind impoverished working class northerner forsaken by Labour may be overplayed, given the greatest shifts were elderly homeowners who were culturally Labour due to history, but economically secure in a way that meant they would have previously been voting Tory in the south.
There are constant societal and economic ebbs and flows across the country. Why for instance is Surrey much less securely Conservative than 30 years ago? The Tories have lost most of the Councils and while only Guildford has gone LD in the recent past it may be different next time.
London is another example - London was a Conservative city, in 1992 the Conservatives won 41 seats and dominated the outer suburbs. Now, they are well behind Labour.
In big cities, socialism makes sense, whereas in towns and rural areas, conservatism makes sense.
Cities tend to have a huge overt gap, between rich and poor, big immigrant populations, housing that’s unaffordable to most, and lots of graduates who can’t get graduate-level jobs. At the same time, public transport, and public services generally, are pretty good.
Outside big cities, people need cars to travel, public services tend to be worse, and people take the view they pay a lot of tax for not much. But, housing is generally affordable.
Rudy Giuliani has filed for bankruptcy after two election workers sued him for defamation and won $148.1m in damages.
Reuters reported that court documents show Giuliani, Donald Trump’s former attorney and former mayor of New York, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Earlier in the day a Washington DC judge allowed the two Georgia election workers who successfully sued Giuliani to immediately collect their millions in damages.
The workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss, would typically have to wait 30 days before they can start attempts to collect payments, but Beryl Howell agreed that Giuliani has “proven himself to be an unwilling and uncooperative litigant”.
I’m not sure the courts did the litigants and favours.
Let’s say they had awarded damages of $5m. They would have likely been paid and - I assume - that would have been a life changing amount of money and fair recompense.
In awarding an amount far beyond what Guiliani could ever afford it has resulted in bankruptcy and the litigants likely getting less money and after a delay as all his other liabilities will be taken into account and may well be secured on assets (eg a mortgage)
Giuliani would still have found a way to avoid paying.
Just as Tolstoy did in this country.
I note in his bankruptcy filing he has over $1m in unpaid taxes. Doesn’t the GOP think he should be jailed for that ?
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
As for Sir Keir, it didn’t seem to bother people that much when dozens of people on here banged on relentlessly about… Bozo
Rudy Giuliani has filed for bankruptcy after two election workers sued him for defamation and won $148.1m in damages.
Reuters reported that court documents show Giuliani, Donald Trump’s former attorney and former mayor of New York, filed for bankruptcy protection.
Earlier in the day a Washington DC judge allowed the two Georgia election workers who successfully sued Giuliani to immediately collect their millions in damages.
The workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss, would typically have to wait 30 days before they can start attempts to collect payments, but Beryl Howell agreed that Giuliani has “proven himself to be an unwilling and uncooperative litigant”.
I’m not sure the courts did the litigants and favours.
Let’s say they had awarded damages of $5m. They would have likely been paid and - I assume - that would have been a life changing amount of money and fair recompense.
In awarding an amount far beyond what Guiliani could ever afford it has resulted in bankruptcy and the litigants likely getting less money and after a delay as all his other liabilities will be taken into account and may well be secured on assets (eg a mortgage)
Giuliani would still have found a way to avoid paying.
Just as Tolstoy did in this country.
I note in his bankruptcy filing he has over $1m in unpaid taxes. Doesn’t the GOP think he should be jailed for that ?
It's only to a Biden government, evading tax is a patriotic duty.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
FYI, I am not struggling with mental health anymore. I am in the best position I ever have been and have been tip top for over a year, so you don't need to worry about me
Spotify will soon generate whole songs based on user’s history, without even crediting a name (or will make up fake ones that sound different for every account). That’ll be the moment when artist music and music business will split as you’ve anticipate. https://twitter.com/phil_rouge/status/1737830408769970353
How do you mean? Kind of generic totally machine made songs of a genre it deduces you like from your listening history? I can't easily imagine that at all.
I am almost tempted to hear such music. In the last week I have listened to Seventies folk, Sixties girl groups, Eighties New Romantics, Australian Nu Punk, Roots Reggae and Gram Parsons.
Such a mashup would be either great or awful!
Where I can imagine it being good is generating covers that should have happened but never did.
Tainted Love by Elvis Smells Like Teen Spirit by Petula Clark Pinball Wizard by Rick Astley
Just 3 of hundreds that spring to mind.
Lola by Anita Bryant I Shot the Sheriff by Pate Boone Dixie by Sammy Davis Junior How Great Thou Art by the Rolling Stones How Much Is That Doggie In the Window by Screaming Lord Sutch
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Rather, you are strangely persistent with attacks that have no purchase.
I’m weirdly obsessed with the announcement they just made on tonight’s ultra salubrious P&O crossing to Calais, which I finally got on to after an epic journey worth of our temporarily banned travel correspondent.
“Attention, if you are a commercial driver please listen to the following announcement. Would commercial drivers please carefully read the Brexit screens in the driver’s restaurant. Please contact staff for further information”.
Brexit screens.
I mean Brexit as it affects cross channel freight was 2 years ago, and commercial drivers on Dover-Calais are presumably used to Brexit by now?
But there we have it. Somewhere in the half-light of the lorry driver’s lounge in the swaying heart of the Spirit of France (it’s rather choppy) there are Brexit screens.
Spotify will soon generate whole songs based on user’s history, without even crediting a name (or will make up fake ones that sound different for every account). That’ll be the moment when artist music and music business will split as you’ve anticipate. https://twitter.com/phil_rouge/status/1737830408769970353
How do you mean? Kind of generic totally machine made songs of a genre it deduces you like from your listening history? I can't easily imagine that at all.
I am almost tempted to hear such music. In the last week I have listened to Seventies folk, Sixties girl groups, Eighties New Romantics, Australian Nu Punk, Roots Reggae and Gram Parsons.
Such a mashup would be either great or awful!
Aussie Punk is my new rabbit hole. Best played loud as feck.
There are a few Nu Punk bands playing not so far from us at the Bearded Theory Festival near Burton in May.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
Attacking the character of the opposing party leader is pretty basic politics, so it doesn't get me fired up as an issue. Usually it isn't from the rival party so much as fellow travellers in press and in the modern world on Social Media. I don't think it changes minds so much as degrades further any faith in our politicians. If they are all so grubby, why bother?
Starmer is grey and wooden, and has done some reverse ferrets in his short political career, but doesn't seem at all thin skinned, so such barbs just bounce off. He really doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, and cannot similarly be a zionist traitor to the Corbynites and a Socialist Remainer wolf in sheep's clothing to the Tories. Neither rings true.
Sunak seems quite thin skinned though and I think the barbs do pain and injure him. Hunt seems resilient, as does Cleverly, but the focus is always on the leader. A Sunak melt down during the campaign seems much more likely than a Starmer one.
Personally, I find the choice nearly as unappetising as Trump vs Biden across the pond. Is this really the best that we can come up with? A grey Barrister or teenage scribbler management consultant Sunak?
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Let's not forget when your boy got flustered he hid in a fridge.
I have a good deal of sympathy with Starmer.
It seems that a good chunk of the civil service regards instructions/orders as something to be ignored if possible.
The Rory Stewart thing we were discussing the other day - multiple lies and evasions over an extended period… well it’s nots the first time we’ve heard such stuff.
Some years ago I worked for an oil company that was known to be a bit like the civil service. And hired from them. I had dealings with a few. And it seemed that written instructions were something they felt bound to evade. At the time I thought it was bitterness at being told what to do by someone younger than them.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Let's not forget when your boy got flustered he hid in a fridge.
I have a good deal of sympathy with Starmer.
It seems that a good chunk of the civil service regards instructions/orders as something to be ignored if possible.
The Rory Stewart thing we were discussing the other day - multiple lies and evasions over an extended period… well it’s nots the first time we’ve heard such stuff.
Some years ago I worked for an oil company that was known to be a bit like the civil service. And hired from them. I had dealings with a few. And it seemed that written instructions were something they felt bound to evade. At the time I thought it was bitterness at being told what to do by someone younger than them.
Our Civil Service is in the same category as the NHS, our Police forces and much of our armed forces. We seem to prefer the delusion that they are the best to making any serious attempt to address their deficiencies.
@Mexicanpete you are weirdly obsessed with Boris Johnson.
If the cap fits, I'll wear it. And it probably does. I wouldn't wish anything unpleasant on him , but I can't deny I absolutely despise the man.
Can we all agree, building on @AverageNinja suggesting Netanyahu is a prick, that Boris is A Johnson?
I had a colleague a few years ago who revealed in conversation that she is Netanyahu’s niece. Wasn’t sure what to say. Wow? Commiserations? That’s nice?
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
Banned from where 100s of times? I’d have thought you’d got the message by now.
@Mexicanpete you are weirdly obsessed with Boris Johnson.
Chill, fellers.
He has a point. I really can't abide Johnson.
Can't stand him either, but he resigned and ran away like Brave Sir Robin, so is history and never coming back.
Are you sure about that? He seems to be plotting his Churchillian second coming.
Plotting? Perhaps. But not realistically.
As of now, he's not even eligible to be a Conservative candidate. And it's hard to think of a seat safe enough for him to stand in- there would be a White Suited Martin Bell figure and that would be that.
The circus has moved on. And that is something to be glad about.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
There were a number of posters demanding your ban should be lifted and for a while before it was. So you have your supporters on here, and good luck to you.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
There were a number of posters demanding your ban should be lifted and for a while before it was. So you have your supporters on here, and good luck to you.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
There were a number of posters demanding your ban should be lifted and for a while before it was. So you have your supporters on here, and good luck to you.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
Even though our politics are poles apart, I have never supported banning you.
I think your charisma factor is a useful insight, and some useful other betting tips too. I just am one of the many here who have been too exposed to Public School bluffers with their sense of entitlement to be fooled by Johnson, so am repelled by his "charisma".
I am enjoying the relief from Spam, Spam, Spam from the suspension of @Leon while it lasts!
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Rather, you are strangely persistent with attacks that have no purchase.
Why is it strange to be persistent? That is a particularly odd thing to say on here of all places.
The inconsistencies with criticisms of Boris/defences of Sir Keir occur daily, so I mention them
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
Even though our politics are poles apart, I have never supported banning you.
I think your charisma factor is a useful insight, and some useful other betting tips too. I just am one of the many here who have been too exposed to Public School bluffers with their sense of entitlement to be fooled by Johnson, so am repelled by his "charisma".
I am enjoying the relief from Spam, Spam, Spam from the suspension of @Leon while it lasts!
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
Even though our politics are poles apart, I have never supported banning you.
I think your charisma factor is a useful insight, and some useful other betting tips too. I just am one of the many here who have been too exposed to Public School bluffers with their sense of entitlement to be fooled by Johnson, so am repelled by his "charisma".
I am enjoying the relief from Spam, Spam, Spam from the suspension of @Leon while it lasts!
Leon’s been banned???? Quem di diligunt, adolescens moritur
FYI, I am not struggling with mental health anymore. I am in the best position I ever have been and have been tip top for over a year, so you don't need to worry about me
@Mexicanpete you are weirdly obsessed with Boris Johnson.
Chill, fellers.
He has a point. I really can't abide Johnson.
Can't stand him either, but he resigned and ran away like Brave Sir Robin, so is history and never coming back.
Are you sure about that? He seems to be plotting his Churchillian second coming.
No, I think that turd has finally been flushed.
He isn't on the candidates list, Sunak is not going to put him there, there are few safe seats. Sure it is possible that once Sunak has gone that someone else might let him back, but why would any new leader want to bring a snake into the tent? And each year his hair is getting thinner and his routine more tired. Boris Johnson is Archie Rice, and has left the stage.
FYI, I am not struggling with mental health anymore. I am in the best position I ever have been and have been tip top for over a year, so you don't need to worry about me
Lucky you.
I did not wish to gloat, I was simply responding to an attack on myself. I hope you are keeping well yourself and am here to support anyone if they need it. I know this can be a difficult time of year because of the lack of light.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Starmer on this board, as I am Johnson.
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
I had plenty worse aimed at me and no one seemed to mind. I’ve been banned 100s of times on a whim and very few people pointed out the unfairness of it, or worried about my mental health , so I don’t know about the ‘spirit of this board’
Even though our politics are poles apart, I have never supported banning you.
I think your charisma factor is a useful insight, and some useful other betting tips too. I just am one of the many here who have been too exposed to Public School bluffers with their sense of entitlement to be fooled by Johnson, so am repelled by his "charisma".
I am enjoying the relief from Spam, Spam, Spam from the suspension of @Leon while it lasts!
Leon’s been banned???? Quem di diligunt, adolescens moritur
Spotify will soon generate whole songs based on user’s history, without even crediting a name (or will make up fake ones that sound different for every account). That’ll be the moment when artist music and music business will split as you’ve anticipate. https://twitter.com/phil_rouge/status/1737830408769970353
How do you mean? Kind of generic totally machine made songs of a genre it deduces you like from your listening history? I can't easily imagine that at all.
I am almost tempted to hear such music. In the last week I have listened to Seventies folk, Sixties girl groups, Eighties New Romantics, Australian Nu Punk, Roots Reggae and Gram Parsons.
Such a mashup would be either great or awful!
Aussie Punk is my new rabbit hole. Best played loud as feck.
There are a few Nu Punk bands playing not so far from us at the Bearded Theory Festival near Burton in May.
I see Bob Vylan are playing at that festival too. I like ‘em - remind me a bit of when Jello Biafra and the fella from Ministry started a band. But British and talking about things going on now. Before you look them up they are very rude (a bit like Sleaford Mods - but more punk) and quite lefty (but isn’t all the best music).
I’m weirdly obsessed with the announcement they just made on tonight’s ultra salubrious P&O crossing to Calais, which I finally got on to after an epic journey worth of our temporarily banned travel correspondent.
“Attention, if you are a commercial driver please listen to the following announcement. Would commercial drivers please carefully read the Brexit screens in the driver’s restaurant. Please contact staff for further information”.
Brexit screens.
I mean Brexit as it affects cross channel freight was 2 years ago, and commercial drivers on Dover-Calais are presumably used to Brexit by now?
But there we have it. Somewhere in the half-light of the lorry driver’s lounge in the swaying heart of the Spirit of France (it’s rather choppy) there are Brexit screens.
But the good news is that as French home owners we can now enjoy six months without interruption as of a couple of days ago
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
I'd say there's some pretty good evidence that being seen as a bit inconsistent or flip-flopping isn't as offputting to voters as it is close political observers or partisans.
Labour tried this line of attack with Cameron and 'Dave the Chameleon'. Before that Blair was 'Phony Tony' who did whatever Mandelson told him voters would like. Heck, one of the most famous things about Boris is the unreliability of his word. All three won elections.
As to why, well, I think it's firstly that people aren't paying enough attention to know how often or how a politician has changed their position. Secondly, it can be spun as an example of being a grown-up and changing your mind, seeking consensus or following what the voters (i.e. you) want. With the exception of Boris - who junked his reputation as being a more liberal Tory Mayor to court Brexiteers on his party's right, the others all flip-flopped towards the centre and supposed pragmatism. So could be seen as having moderated and evolved views.
Finally, highlighting someone's flip-flopped on something tends to highlight that they've swapped their previous (usually bad) position for the more sensible one. If you take Starmer and Corbyn, for example, I don't think anyone can deny Starmer was a little Machiavellian in his actions (though if you read between the lines on his statements on antisemitism, Corbyn was always going to fall foul of a less lenient approach). But by saying he's changed his tune, you only highlight the fact that he err, has, and now doesn't have any truck with the far left, plus is maybe more ruthless (not a bad trait in a PM) than the adenoidal voice would indicate.
In local UK news we’re now 3 days into what will certainly be the most impressive sustained period of wind power dominating the grid to date.
Currently generating 21gw of power from wind, and only 2.6gw from any form of fossil fuel (CCGT).
There were a rash of stories last week about the grid not being able to cope with surges in wind power and the need to switch many of the turbines off as a result. It was alleged that the money wasted (the turbine owners still get paid) was adding £40 onto the average bill.
Given our massive investment in wind this seemed a somewhat suboptimal state of affairs.
Then we need a massive investment in battery (or pumped, or big weights up and down mineshafts) storage.
The quickest return is on high voltage interconnects.
A European grid with sufficient capacity would cut such losses by a substantial amount, and pay for itself in perhaps half a decade - much quicker than any of the other alternatives. For now, we don't even have a UK wide grid with enough capacity.
Batteries, for now, are too expensive for anything but local, short term storage (and EVs will probably add capacity faster than pure storage projects).
Awaiting the inevitable reaction from the usual suspects:
Pumped Scottish based storage for an independent Scotland = laudable aim for progress to Net Zero.
Pumped Scottish based storage for the UK market = colonialist exploitation.
I would have thought that Scottish enterprises building valuable facilities in Scotland would tend to help rather than hinder any case for Scottish independence. I don't see it as that kind of issue at all, FWIW.
The problem with pumped storage is that it means flooding land. There will, undoubtedly, be local opposition to each and every proposal.
This is why building new reservoirs, for whatever reason, has fallen out of fashion.
Batteries will win, in the medium term, simply because they scale from small installations, and there is pretty much no planning required.
Park a handful of shipping containers on a site - and under U.K. planning rules a small installation doesn’t require full scale planning. So if you have an old power station site (or even a container park) already, there would be next to nothing to stop you parking the containers.
The main constraint is actually supply - not enough batteries. Yet.
I calculated, recently, that replicating Dinorwig with batteries would cost about the same as building it with water storage.
I don't agree about local objections; the areas are very remote and I believe much of the pumped storage has already received planning permission - what is missing is the economical impetus to build the facilities, in no small part because the constraint payments regime makes it far more lucrative to get paid for switching off than to organise effective storage.
Pumped hydro is massively cleaner than batteries and the energy can be stored indefinitely, whereas batteries can store it for (afaik) a day. There is also no competition for materials, resulting in supply issues that you admit.
Storage will be addressed seriously when power providers *need* to sell their energy to make money. Until this situation occurs, we will continue to mutter about it and nothing will happen.
Building new reservoirs did not 'fall out of fashion', it fell foul of the EU water framework directive which has been gold plated enthusiastically by UK agencies. Nobody would object to (for example) an old quarry being made into a reservoir, and it is specious or uncharicteristically ignorant to blame nimbies for our lack of new water infrastructure.
Batteries can store power long term. In any case, most of the time shifting that is required is over the 24h cycle.
Perhaps in an ideal world it would be all pumped storage. But within a decade, we will be looking at surplus battery production, at prices about 50% less than now.
Which will make batteries the cheaper option.
I don’t see how. Pumped is like tidal - an initial investment then it virtually pays for itself. Batteries still need to be replaced, recycled/disposed of.
The issue with pumped storage is that you need two massive reservoirs that are next to each other, and which have a large vertical drop between them. And it helps if there is some nice solid rock for you to mount turbines in, rather than pouring concrete.
(Power capacity is vertical drop x amount of water / reduced by a factor according to the horizontal distance between reservoirs.)
The last time I looked, there were very few sites with two big reservoirs. Most potential sites were quite small. And that's a bit of a problem, because they are not maintenance free. Those turbines take a battering from the water going through them. And you need to regularly desilt your reservoirs.
Given the big differentials between peak and off peak electricity, it may make economic sense to build out some of these smaller sites. But I'm highly doubtful that there are enough sites to really meaningfully add capacity.
These are not the objections either - the sites have already been identified, and the schemes have already progressed considerably.
The hold up is that the financial ecosystem that would make such investments economically attractive is not there. And that's because you get wads of money to constrain, so why would you pay more to store? If the Government allowed wind providers to 'double dip' by selling their stored power and being paid when they constrain, whilst closing the other avenues of ludicrous profiteering in the renewables industry, it would be a positive development that I suspect would see these schemes being financed by consortia of wind farms very quickly.
Spotify will soon generate whole songs based on user’s history, without even crediting a name (or will make up fake ones that sound different for every account). That’ll be the moment when artist music and music business will split as you’ve anticipate. https://twitter.com/phil_rouge/status/1737830408769970353
How do you mean? Kind of generic totally machine made songs of a genre it deduces you like from your listening history? I can't easily imagine that at all.
I am almost tempted to hear such music. In the last week I have listened to Seventies folk, Sixties girl groups, Eighties New Romantics, Australian Nu Punk, Roots Reggae and Gram Parsons.
Such a mashup would be either great or awful!
Aussie Punk is my new rabbit hole. Best played loud as feck.
There are a few Nu Punk bands playing not so far from us at the Bearded Theory Festival near Burton in May.
I see Bob Vylan are playing at that festival too. I like ‘em - remind me a bit of when Jello Biafra and the fella from Ministry started a band. But British and talking about things going on now. Before you look them up they are very rude (a bit like Sleaford Mods - but more punk) and quite lefty (but isn’t all the best music).
Yes, it really looks a good line up. Pib Blom and Warmduscher too. Not so punky but great new acts.
I see Bob Vylan are playing at that festival too. I like ‘em - remind me a bit of when Jello Biafra and the fella from Ministry started a band. But British and talking about things going on now. Before you look them up they are very rude (a bit like Sleaford Mods - but more punk) and quite lefty (but isn’t all the best music).
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
I'd say there's some pretty good evidence that being seen as a bit inconsistent or flip-flopping isn't as offputting to voters as it is close political observers or partisans.
Labour tried this line of attack with Cameron and 'Dave the Chameleon'. Before that Blair was 'Phony Tony' who did whatever Mandelson told him voters would like. Heck, one of the most famous things about Boris is the unreliability of his word. All three won elections.
As to why, well, I think it's firstly that people aren't paying enough attention to know how often or how a politician has changed their position. Secondly, it can be spun as an example of being a grown-up and changing your mind, seeking consensus or following what the voters (i.e. you) want. With the exception of Boris - who junked his reputation as being a more liberal Tory Mayor to court Brexiteers on his party's right, the others all flip-flopped towards the centre and supposed pragmatism. So could be seen as having moderated and evolved views.
Finally, highlighting someone's flip-flopped on something tends to highlight that they've swapped their previous (usually bad) position for the more sensible one. If you take Starmer and Corbyn, for example, I don't think anyone can deny Starmer was a little Machiavellian in his actions (though if you read between the lines on his statements on antisemitism, Corbyn was always going to fall foul of a less lenient approach). But by saying he's changed his tune, you only highlight the fact that he err, has, and now doesn't have any truck with the far left, plus is maybe more ruthless (not a bad trait in a PM) than the adenoidal voice would indicate.
I’ve never said he’d be a bad PM. The strange things about the attacks on me are that I’m responding to articles saying he should be attacked over defending terrorists and letting off Jimmy Savile by saying that would be a bad idea. ‘Weirdly obsessed’ people would jump on any lazy attack on someone, as many did with Boris (People of talent/colour for instance)
It seems to me a lot of people on here just can’t handle well reasoned, well argued, well researched arguments against positions/politicians they favour
Let's not forget when your boy got flustered he hid in a fridge.
Nah you see when Boris does something it's lovable and "one of the lads", jolly good good chap! Bring Boris back!
This is reminding me of the Kate/Meghan thing. Kate and Meghan would do exactly the same thing, such as wear a similar dress or pat their pregnant bulges, and Kate would get praised for it but Meghan would get criticised for it.
Spotify will soon generate whole songs based on user’s history, without even crediting a name (or will make up fake ones that sound different for every account). That’ll be the moment when artist music and music business will split as you’ve anticipate. https://twitter.com/phil_rouge/status/1737830408769970353
How do you mean? Kind of generic totally machine made songs of a genre it deduces you like from your listening history? I can't easily imagine that at all.
I am almost tempted to hear such music. In the last week I have listened to Seventies folk, Sixties girl groups, Eighties New Romantics, Australian Nu Punk, Roots Reggae and Gram Parsons.
Such a mashup would be either great or awful!
Aussie Punk is my new rabbit hole. Best played loud as feck.
There are a few Nu Punk bands playing not so far from us at the Bearded Theory Festival near Burton in May.
I see Bob Vylan are playing at that festival too. I like ‘em - remind me a bit of when Jello Biafra and the fella from Ministry started a band. But British and talking about things going on now. Before you look them up they are very rude (a bit like Sleaford Mods - but more punk) and quite lefty (but isn’t all the best music).
Bob Delyn are also excellent. Not in the least like Ministry or Jello Biafra, mind.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Rather, you are strangely persistent with attacks that have no purchase.
Why is it strange to be persistent? That is a particularly odd thing to say on here of all places.
The inconsistencies with criticisms of Boris/defences of Sir Keir occur daily, so I mention them
I’ve no problems with persistence, but they’re not attacks which have much salience, was my point.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Rather, you are strangely persistent with attacks that have no purchase.
Why is it strange to be persistent? That is a particularly odd thing to say on here of all places.
The inconsistencies with criticisms of Boris/defences of Sir Keir occur daily, so I mention them
I’ve no problems with persistence, but they’re not attacks which have much salience, was my point.
We’ll see how he deals with it when put under the microscope in the campaign. But the question being asked is ‘How Will the Tories attack Starmer?’ or ‘Is it right to use his record as DPP as a weapon?’ I presume you don’t think the Savile/Qatada line is valid either, so what would you suggest?
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
I'd say there's some pretty good evidence that being seen as a bit inconsistent or flip-flopping isn't as offputting to voters as it is close political observers or partisans.
Labour tried this line of attack with Cameron and 'Dave the Chameleon'. Before that Blair was 'Phony Tony' who did whatever Mandelson told him voters would like. Heck, one of the most famous things about Boris is the unreliability of his word. All three won elections.
As to why, well, I think it's firstly that people aren't paying enough attention to know how often or how a politician has changed their position. Secondly, it can be spun as an example of being a grown-up and changing your mind, seeking consensus or following what the voters (i.e. you) want. With the exception of Boris - who junked his reputation as being a more liberal Tory Mayor to court Brexiteers on his party's right, the others all flip-flopped towards the centre and supposed pragmatism. So could be seen as having moderated and evolved views.
Finally, highlighting someone's flip-flopped on something tends to highlight that they've swapped their previous (usually bad) position for the more sensible one. If you take Starmer and Corbyn, for example, I don't think anyone can deny Starmer was a little Machiavellian in his actions (though if you read between the lines on his statements on antisemitism, Corbyn was always going to fall foul of a less lenient approach). But by saying he's changed his tune, you only highlight the fact that he err, has, and now doesn't have any truck with the far left, plus is maybe more ruthless (not a bad trait in a PM) than the adenoidal voice would indicate.
I’ve never said he’d be a bad PM. The strange things about the attacks on me are that I’m responding to articles saying he should be attacked over defending terrorists and letting off Jimmy Savile by saying that would be a bad idea. ‘Weirdly obsessed’ people would jump on any lazy attack on someone, as many did with Boris (People of talent/colour for instance)
It seems to me a lot of people on here just can’t handle well reasoned, well argued, well researched arguments against positions/politicians they favour
Oh I wasn't having a go - hope I was polite - just pointing out that flip-flopper is a very difficult attack line to land, in Britain at least. Because it's often a tacit admission that the cupboard is bear as your opponent can't be cast as mad or bad, nor weak.
As for Savile, I agree it won't work. It's already been trotted out by Boris and backfired as even some Tories came out to defend Starmer and he has a fairly robust defence in terms of changing the guidance on charging. People would ask if he wasn't really criticised then, why is it justified now? Unless of course there's a piece of paper or witness somewhere that says he had a personal hand in the decision it'll fizzle out.
It looks like Starmer is about to get into trouble for lack of action on Saville. There was an open file on Saville, but was closed when Starmer was in charge of the DPP, and the defence he’s trying to use is that he didn’t know anything about it or what was going on.
One of the problems with being in charge of departments for any length of time is things are going to go wrong, especially in the area of public prosecutions where we know as fact innocent people get banged up and guilty remain free at times. Your work is re-evaluated in hindsight.
But Starmer is going to need a stronger reply than the “I was in charge , yes, but I wasn’t told” line his team has preemptively slipped The Guardian.
He can’t use that given what he expected of Boris re partygate, but I don’t think this line of attack will work.
His Achilles heels are his inconsistent ‘principles’ and difficulty keeping to commitments/pledges; there’s ample evidence of it, loads of videos on X/Twitter. I’m sure interviewers will go big on that in the campaign and he will get flustered, whereas he has all his answers worked out with the Savile accusations
Not really. This is a political debating site, he is leader of the opposition who I don’t think much of. Plenty of people did exactly the same about with Boris Johnson. If I were banging on about something nothing to do with politics or betting m, that would be weird
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
Oh, you are obsessed by Starmer. It strikes me as a visceral hatred of a despised political opponent, which is fine. I really dislike Boris Johnson and with some good cause, I would add.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
I don’t get how someone who claims to be struggling with their mental health thinks it’s helpful for them to be a troll
I don't think suggesting you are obsessed with Starmer is trolling. You accused me of something similar regarding Johnson a few threads ago. You may have a point, and I certainly didn't believe you to be trolling me.
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
I'd say there's some pretty good evidence that being seen as a bit inconsistent or flip-flopping isn't as offputting to voters as it is close political observers or partisans.
Labour tried this line of attack with Cameron and 'Dave the Chameleon'. Before that Blair was 'Phony Tony' who did whatever Mandelson told him voters would like. Heck, one of the most famous things about Boris is the unreliability of his word. All three won elections.
As to why, well, I think it's firstly that people aren't paying enough attention to know how often or how a politician has changed their position. Secondly, it can be spun as an example of being a grown-up and changing your mind, seeking consensus or following what the voters (i.e. you) want. With the exception of Boris - who junked his reputation as being a more liberal Tory Mayor to court Brexiteers on his party's right, the others all flip-flopped towards the centre and supposed pragmatism. So could be seen as having moderated and evolved views.
Finally, highlighting someone's flip-flopped on something tends to highlight that they've swapped their previous (usually bad) position for the more sensible one. If you take Starmer and Corbyn, for example, I don't think anyone can deny Starmer was a little Machiavellian in his actions (though if you read between the lines on his statements on antisemitism, Corbyn was always going to fall foul of a less lenient approach). But by saying he's changed his tune, you only highlight the fact that he err, has, and now doesn't have any truck with the far left, plus is maybe more ruthless (not a bad trait in a PM) than the adenoidal voice would indicate.
I’ve never said he’d be a bad PM. The strange things about the attacks on me are that I’m responding to articles saying he should be attacked over defending terrorists and letting off Jimmy Savile by saying that would be a bad idea. ‘Weirdly obsessed’ people would jump on any lazy attack on someone, as many did with Boris (People of talent/colour for instance)
It seems to me a lot of people on here just can’t handle well reasoned, well argued, well researched arguments against positions/politicians they favour
Oh I wasn't having a go - hope I was polite - just pointing out that flip-flopper is a very difficult attack line to land, in Britain at least. Because it's often a tacit admission that the cupboard is bear as your opponent can't be cast as mad or bad, nor weak.
As for Savile, I agree it won't work. It's already been trotted out by Boris and backfired as even some Tories came out to defend Starmer and he has a fairly robust defence in terms of changing the guidance on charging. People would ask if he wasn't really criticised then, why is it justified now? Unless of course there's a piece of paper or witness somewhere that says he had a personal hand in the decision it'll fizzle out.
Sorry, you were polite. I didn’t meant to sound as though I was having a go at you
The reason I think it might work with Sir Keir is he has built an image as boring, but honest and with integrity. His double standards and flip flops show it’s not true and that may sweep his legs from under him as there’s not much else he is offering
Comments
Someone who claims to have mental health problems calling someone else ‘weirdly
obsessed’ is the weird thing to me
I suppose a lot of punk was reminiscent of early Eddy Cochrane, The Specials were Ska revivalist and there was a psychedelic revival in the Eighties, so maybe just nothing new under the sun.
I am not sure the relevance of bringing up my mental health, which is brilliant BTW
Because of that, I'll leave it there. Have a good Christmas Sam.
It's the same as those arguments about how it might not be ok for every other officer of the United States to do crime X, but for the President it's fine.
But don't you think it a little unpleasant that you have called out a casual comment by another poster by trawling up what you perceived to be their Achilles heel?
It's one thing to be chippy to fellow posters but downright mean really is bad form.
Cities tend to have a huge overt gap, between rich and poor, big immigrant populations, housing that’s unaffordable to most, and lots of graduates who can’t get graduate-level jobs. At the same time, public transport, and public services generally, are pretty good.
Outside big cities, people need cars to travel, public services tend to be worse, and people take the view they pay a lot of tax for not much. But, housing is generally affordable.
Doesn’t the GOP think he should be jailed for that ?
As for Sir Keir, it didn’t seem to bother people that much when dozens of people on here banged on relentlessly about… Bozo
(C) DJ Trump.
I Shot the Sheriff by Pate Boone
Dixie by Sammy Davis Junior
How Great Thou Art by the Rolling Stones
How Much Is That Doggie In the Window by Screaming Lord Sutch
“Attention, if you are a commercial driver please listen to the following announcement. Would commercial drivers please carefully read the Brexit screens in the driver’s restaurant. Please contact staff for further information”.
Brexit screens.
I mean Brexit as it affects cross channel freight was 2 years ago, and commercial drivers on Dover-Calais are presumably used to Brexit by now?
But there we have it. Somewhere in the half-light of the lorry driver’s lounge in the swaying heart of the Spirit of France (it’s rather choppy) there are Brexit screens.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=bert+smelly+and+the+stink+bombs+dudley+moore+advert#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:6b696421,vid:SM8u-XssyKQ,st:0
What I really think is - no one can refute what I say about Sir Keir; his own words condemn him as a flip flopping hypocrite and it’s only hatred of Boris that stops people admitting it. Maybe people feel like they’d be giving in
As for Ninja Horse Battery or whatever they’re called, I think he used his MH as a shield to hide behind when trolling before, and not much has changed since.
Starmer is grey and wooden, and has done some reverse ferrets in his short political career, but doesn't seem at all thin skinned, so such barbs just bounce off. He really doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, and cannot similarly be a zionist traitor to the Corbynites and a Socialist Remainer wolf in sheep's clothing to the Tories. Neither rings true.
Sunak seems quite thin skinned though and I think the barbs do pain and injure him. Hunt seems resilient, as does Cleverly, but the focus is always on the leader. A Sunak melt down during the campaign seems much more likely than a Starmer one.
Personally, I find the choice nearly as unappetising as Trump vs Biden across the pond. Is this really the best that we can come up with? A grey Barrister or teenage scribbler management consultant Sunak?
I do not believe your second paragraph is worthy of the spirit of this board.
It seems that a good chunk of the civil service regards instructions/orders as something to be ignored if possible.
The Rory Stewart thing we were discussing the other day - multiple lies and evasions over an extended period… well it’s nots the first time we’ve heard such stuff.
Some years ago I worked for an oil company that was known to be a bit like the civil service. And hired from them. I had dealings with a few. And it seemed that written instructions were something they felt bound to evade. At the time I thought it was bitterness at being told what to do by someone younger than them.
As of now, he's not even eligible to be a Conservative candidate. And it's hard to think of a seat safe enough for him to stand in- there would be a White Suited Martin Bell figure and that would be that.
The circus has moved on. And that is something to be glad about.
For the record none of those posters was me.
Or perhaps not.
I think your charisma factor is a useful insight, and some useful other betting tips too. I just am one of the many here who have been too exposed to Public School bluffers with their sense of entitlement to be fooled by Johnson, so am repelled by his "charisma".
I am enjoying the relief from Spam, Spam, Spam from the suspension of @Leon while it lasts!
The inconsistencies with criticisms of Boris/defences of Sir Keir occur daily, so I mention them
He isn't on the candidates list, Sunak is not going to put him there, there are few safe seats. Sure it is possible that once Sunak has gone that someone else might let him back, but why would any new leader want to bring a snake into the tent? And each year his hair is getting thinner and his routine more tired. Boris Johnson is Archie Rice, and has left the stage.
Labour tried this line of attack with Cameron and 'Dave the Chameleon'. Before that Blair was 'Phony Tony' who did whatever Mandelson told him voters would like. Heck, one of the most famous things about Boris is the unreliability of his word. All three won elections.
As to why, well, I think it's firstly that people aren't paying enough attention to know how often or how a politician has changed their position. Secondly, it can be spun as an example of being a grown-up and changing your mind, seeking consensus or following what the voters (i.e. you) want. With the exception of Boris - who junked his reputation as being a more liberal Tory Mayor to court Brexiteers on his party's right, the others all flip-flopped towards the centre and supposed pragmatism. So could be seen as having moderated and evolved views.
Finally, highlighting someone's flip-flopped on something tends to highlight that they've swapped their previous (usually bad) position for the more sensible one. If you take Starmer and Corbyn, for example, I don't think anyone can deny Starmer was a little Machiavellian in his actions (though if you read between the lines on his statements on antisemitism, Corbyn was always going to fall foul of a less lenient approach). But by saying he's changed his tune, you only highlight the fact that he err, has, and now doesn't have any truck with the far left, plus is maybe more ruthless (not a bad trait in a PM) than the adenoidal voice would indicate.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/21/home-office-reduces-earning-threshold-hike-for-family-visa
The hold up is that the financial ecosystem that would make such investments economically attractive is not there. And that's because you get wads of money to constrain, so why would you pay more to store? If the Government allowed wind providers to 'double dip' by selling their stored power and being paid when they constrain, whilst closing the other avenues of ludicrous profiteering in the renewables industry, it would be a positive development that I suspect would see these schemes being financed by consortia of wind farms very quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xegzMpQ1Rd4
"King Creosote - Ides"
It's rather melancholic, and rather beautiful.
Fantastic folk guy. Got lots of his material.
Sir Keir has literally argued both sides of the coin on Brexit, FOM, gender, nationalisation, Corbyn, & tax rises, off the top of my head
It seems to me a lot of people on here just can’t handle well reasoned, well argued, well researched arguments against positions/politicians they favour
Kate and Meghan would do exactly the same thing, such as wear a similar dress or pat their pregnant bulges, and Kate would get praised for it but Meghan would get criticised for it.
https://twitter.com/coldwarsteve/status/1737938254626783345
Hell, I've been banned from PB, PBS, BBC, RCMP, ACLU, UCLA, NAACP, NSDAP, DYI and Denny's!
Angela is going to be a serious asset to the next Labour Government. A real super-star, the 2024 John Prescott.
She is often compared to Prescott but she seems to me to actually have more about her.
Starmer?’ or ‘Is it right to use his record as DPP as a weapon?’ I presume you don’t think the Savile/Qatada line is valid either, so what would you suggest?
“No Labels floats the possibility of a coalition government or Congress selecting the president in 2024”
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1737980148643729635
As for Savile, I agree it won't work. It's already been trotted out by Boris and backfired as even some Tories came out to defend Starmer and he has a fairly robust defence in terms of changing the guidance on charging. People would ask if he wasn't really criticised then, why is it justified now? Unless of course there's a piece of paper or witness somewhere that says he had a personal hand in the decision it'll fizzle out.
https://x.com/timmyvoe240886/status/1705632053734014989?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The reason I think it might work with Sir Keir is he has built an image as boring, but honest and with integrity. His double standards and flip flops show it’s not true and that may sweep his legs from under him as there’s not much else he is offering