PIGLET - dual cryptic definitions. David Cameron’s name for Boris Johnson was the ‘greased piglet'. So he partly called Boris piglet. Napoleon in Animal Farm is a pig so his offspring (issue) would be a piglet.
Works for Napoleon issue, but I don't get the Cameron Boris bit
Mr C called Mr J a greased piglet ... wiki quote is "The thing about the greased piglet is that he manages to slip through other people's hands where mere mortals fail"
23A Dinah? 20D Cheney? 27A then possibly ends in elsky?
Zelensky
Zen with el inside and sky
Yes.
ZELENSKY - ZEN (calm) around (taking on) EL (the Spanish) + SKY (broadcaster)
Volodymyr Zelensky is President of Ukraine.
All done and dusted!
It's been great fun doing this once again and many thanks to Mike and TSE for indulging me each year. Thanks also to everyone who has contributed to solving the crossword.
23A Dinah? 20D Cheney? 27A then possibly ends in elsky?
Zelensky
Zen with el inside and sky
Yes.
ZELENSKY - ZEN (calm) around (taking on) EL (the Spanish) + SKY (broadcaster)
Volodymyr Zelensky is President of Ukraine.
All done and dusted!
It's been great fun doing this once again and many thanks to Mike and TSE for indulging me each year. THanks also to everyone who has contributed to solving the crossword.
I'd just like to mention those who are having a slightly less festive Christmas because they are working today: not just the nurses and doctors staffing our hospitals, or the police keeping us safe, but the myriad other jobs going on behind the scenes, including keeping the Christmas lights on and providing gas to cook the Christmas turkey.
There are lots of people on shift work today, keeping the country running.
I'd just like to mention those who are having a slightly less festive Christmas because they are working today: not just the nurses and doctors staffing our hospitals, or the police keeping us safe, but the myriad other jobs going on behind the scenes, including keeping the Christmas lights on and providing gas to cook the Christmas turkey.
There are lots of people on shift work today, keeping the country running.
Because of my ‘problems’ I have carers twice a day and they’re rostered as usual. The morning lady came as usual, has a couple more calls and is then heading home where, she said, her husband will have the Christmas dinner almost ready.
(Especially when I remember how to change my Avatar).
I'm I'm also thinking about BHers having a tough time.
I'm taking an impromptu Christmas Box on a long stick round for a friend this who is self-isolating with Covid today, and like me lives on his own, having caught it at his own gym's Christmas Party.
A couple of home cooked dishes for later in the weak, a loaf of bread that is currently baking in the machine, mince pies and so on.
And my sister is in hospital from a few days ago until perhaps early Jan, having a condition stabilised that they have not identified yet. Unlikely to be diabetes, fortunately, as that would have been detected immediately I think.
Look after yourselves and everyone around you as you are able.
I'll be raising my glass to everyone hoping for a better 2024.
Merry Christmas to everyone who makes PB such a great place to hang out.
Often ahead of the game with news and insight, and with sufficiently indulgent moderation that allows us to wibble on about anything and everything.
If this is your first Christmas since the loss of a loved one, just remember all of the joyful Christmases you shared as you raise a glass in their memory.
I'd just like to mention those who are having a slightly less festive Christmas because they are working today: not just the nurses and doctors staffing our hospitals, or the police keeping us safe, but the myriad other jobs going on behind the scenes, including keeping the Christmas lights on and providing gas to cook the Christmas turkey.
There are lots of people on shift work today, keeping the country running.
Because of my ‘problems’ I have carers twice a day and they’re rostered as usual…
Seems a bit mean, expecting them to stay sober on Xmas Day?
I'd just like to mention those who are having a slightly less festive Christmas because they are working today: not just the nurses and doctors staffing our hospitals, or the police keeping us safe, but the myriad other jobs going on behind the scenes, including keeping the Christmas lights on and providing gas to cook the Christmas turkey.
There are lots of people on shift work today, keeping the country running.
Because of my ‘problems’ I have carers twice a day and they’re rostered as usual…
Seems a bit mean, expecting them to stay sober on Xmas Day?
A bit mean, maybe, having to stay sober and cheerful while coping with me! I can have my off days!
Ahem. The nearest big city to me is a traditional football rival to Southampton - not that I am interested in football. We do have the South Coast in common.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
O tidings of comfort and joy Comfort and joy O tidings of comfort and joy
And now I'm off to my younger daughter's and grandchildren for Xmas lunch, booze, games, possibly telly and zzzz.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
Merry Christmas all!
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
Merry Xmas to one and all. I hope you all wake up tomorrow rich as f*** and with good hair. Meanwhile, good luck with getting thru the day without wanting to kill your relatives... 😃
Nothing much on Christmas telly so I shall now watch my Christmas DVD of Kenneth Branagh playing Boris Johnson in This England (which wealthy PBers will have seen on Sky when it came out).
Nothing much on Christmas telly so I shall now watch my Christmas DVD of Kenneth Branagh playing Boris Johnson in This England (which wealthy PBers will have seen on Sky when it came out).
Doctor Who is on at teatime with a great baby-eating song (genuinely)
And in other Christmas news of merry cheer, it looks as though the Russians lost an SU-30 and SU-34 yesterday, making five high-end planes lost in a few days.
Yet again, making it clear that the Ukrainians make good use of the gifts we give them.
"Dear Santa, may I have a new Patriot battery? I've been a good boy this year. Signed, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. P.s.: I don't want to be a sneak, but my neighbour Putin's been an absolute stinker this year. They don't call him 'Vlad the Bad' for nothing."
I hope there is no fighting today and peace, even for the Russians.
Russian Christmas isn't for several more days.
And neither the Israelis nor Palestinians celebrate it.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
Merry Christmas all!
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
One of the biggest challenges that the UK faces is a metastasising but completely useless and unproductive state. The civil service is becoming less effective, yet increasingly political, and ever more voracious when it comes to taxpayers' money. The NHS, the Bank of England, the OBR, the Home Office - have we seen a quango or department that isn't a total shitshow in recent years? You could say the Tories have done nothing about it, and you'd be right, but the indications are that Starmer would hand greater power to organisations like the OBR, making the task of elected politicians to turn the country around even harder.
Merry Christmas to everyone and many thanks to St John for another excellent crossword (I am rubbish at these so won't even attempt )
Special thanks to Mike, TSE, and everyone else who's either involved in running the site or who has contributed articles.
It's been a lot of fun making the odd cameo appearance on here (mainly on election nights) and very best wishes to everyone and their loved ones for the year ahead.
2024 is obviously going to be stacked for elections - not just the US and UK, but other biggies such as India, Indonesia, Mexico, and a host of others.
I'll aim to do a full election list with dates, as well as my list of 2023 albums (still have Blur and OMD to listen to) and a quick look ahead to potential 2024 albums, in due course.
Getting ready to set off to attend the Christmas get together with assorted in-laws.
I still have lingering symptoms from last Monday's viral attack, so will be staying off the booze. However, my meat-free diet will be taking a day off.
Getting ready to set off to attend the Christmas get together with assorted in-laws.
I still have lingering symptoms from last Monday's viral attack, so will be staying off the booze. However, my meat-free diet will be taking a day off.
Mum and I are staying with my brother, sister-in-law and 3-year-old nephew. I made the mistake of buying the little guy a "Spidey and Friends" Lego set, so we're stuck with watching the eponymous cartoon all afternoon!
Getting ready to set off to attend the Christmas get together with assorted in-laws.
I still have lingering symptoms from last Monday's viral attack, so will be staying off the booze. However, my meat-free diet will be taking a day off.
Mum and I are staying with my brother, sister-in-law and 3-year-old nephew. I made the mistake of buying the little guy a "Spidey and Friends" Lego set, so we're stuck with watching the eponymous cartoon all afternoon!
Your fault for not buying a Lego set of a Class 55
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
Merry Christmas all!
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
One of the biggest challenges that the UK faces is a metastasising but completely useless and unproductive state. The civil service is becoming less effective, yet increasingly political, and ever more voracious when it comes to taxpayers' money. The NHS, the Bank of England, the OBR, the Home Office - have we seen a quango or department that isn't a total shitshow in recent years? You could say the Tories have done nothing about it, and you'd be right, but the indications are that Starmer would hand greater power to organisations like the OBR, making the task of elected politicians to turn the country around even harder.
Robin McAlpine of Common Weal, has a few ideas, applicable not just for Scotland.
Getting ready to set off to attend the Christmas get together with assorted in-laws.
I still have lingering symptoms from last Monday's viral attack, so will be staying off the booze. However, my meat-free diet will be taking a day off.
So all that criticism of Boris telling people to go out and kill their grannies has mellowed somewhat.
Nothing much on Christmas telly so I shall now watch my Christmas DVD of Kenneth Branagh playing Boris Johnson in This England (which wealthy PBers will have seen on Sky when it came out).
Watching my grandkids competing on Fortnite before we attack the turkey with knives. Fortnite is a foreign world. I suddenly feel old but I'm enjoying the champagne
The connection between Islam, Christianity and Judaism as the great Abrahamic religions. The recognition that for some Christmas is more about family and friendship than Christianity. The need for community activism and to protect our environment and deal with the challenge of climate change.
Very much a King's speech written in preparedness for a likely Starmer government next year I would say. Much less about Jesus and Christianity than his mother had too
Nothing much on Christmas telly so I shall now watch my Christmas DVD of Kenneth Branagh playing Boris Johnson in This England (which wealthy PBers will have seen on Sky when it came out).
you still have a dvd player?
PC. I fear my dvd collection will shortly become a large set of shiny drinks coasters.
And in other Christmas news of merry cheer, it looks as though the Russians lost an SU-30 and SU-34 yesterday, making five high-end planes lost in a few days.
Yet again, making it clear that the Ukrainians make good use of the gifts we give them.
"Dear Santa, may I have a new Patriot battery? I've been a good boy this year. Signed, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. P.s.: I don't want to be a sneak, but my neighbour Putin's been an absolute stinker this year. They don't call him 'Vlad the Bad' for nothing."
And as soon as they get a run of unfortunate events like this, Russia decide to pull back the bombers. As Kasparov notes on Twitter, Russia deescalates when it’s getting its arse kicked, and escalates when others show weakness.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
The connection between Islam, Christianity and Judaism as the great Abrahamic religions. The recognition that for some Christmas is more about family and friendship than Christianity. The need for community activism and to protect our environment and deal with the challenge of climate change.
Very much a King's speech written in preparedness for a likely Starmer government next year I would say. Much less about Jesus and Christianity than his mother had too
The connection between Islam, Christianity and Judaism as the great Abrahamic religions. The recognition that for some Christmas is more about family and friendship than Christianity. The need for community activism and to protect our environment and deal with the challenge of climate change.
Very much a King's speech written in preparedness for a likely Starmer government next year I would say. Much less about Jesus and Christianity than his mother had too
If Charles were a private citizen, I expect I would have very little in common with him, politically. I’m not sure he’d even be a supporter of the monarchy.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
Merry Christmas all!
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
One of the biggest challenges that the UK faces is a metastasising but completely useless and unproductive state. The civil service is becoming less effective, yet increasingly political, and ever more voracious when it comes to taxpayers' money. The NHS, the Bank of England, the OBR, the Home Office - have we seen a quango or department that isn't a total shitshow in recent years? You could say the Tories have done nothing about it, and you'd be right, but the indications are that Starmer would hand greater power to organisations like the OBR, making the task of elected politicians to turn the country around even harder.
Robin McAlpine of Common Weal, has a few ideas, applicable not just for Scotland.
My advice to Starmer, FWIW, would be to focus on three big things, and concentrate on fixing them. Accept that you won’t fix everything, and accept that some things are insoluble.
The connection between Islam, Christianity and Judaism as the great Abrahamic religions. The recognition that for some Christmas is more about family and friendship than Christianity. The need for community activism and to protect our environment and deal with the challenge of climate change.
Very much a King's speech written in preparedness for a likely Starmer government next year I would say. Much less about Jesus and Christianity than his mother had too
If Charles were a private citizen, I expect I would have very little in common with him, politically. I’m not sure he’d even be a supporter of the monarchy.
If Charles were a private citizen he would probably be a LD or Green or even Starmer Labour. He would probably still support the monarchy but a monarchy more in the reformed direction he is trying to move it in
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
Merry Christmas all!
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
One of the biggest challenges that the UK faces is a metastasising but completely useless and unproductive state. The civil service is becoming less effective, yet increasingly political, and ever more voracious when it comes to taxpayers' money. The NHS, the Bank of England, the OBR, the Home Office - have we seen a quango or department that isn't a total shitshow in recent years? You could say the Tories have done nothing about it, and you'd be right, but the indications are that Starmer would hand greater power to organisations like the OBR, making the task of elected politicians to turn the country around even harder.
Robin McAlpine of Common Weal, has a few ideas, applicable not just for Scotland.
My advice to Starmer, FWIW, would be to focus on three big things, and concentrate on fixing them. Accept that you won’t fix everything, and accept that some things are insoluble.
Housing, Healthcare and...Industry?
I would have the State commission housebuilding to try and drive up volumes. I would increase medical training places so that they exceed the long term requirements of the NHS, and I would do whatever it took to attract investment in future industries to Britain.
Getting ready to set off to attend the Christmas get together with assorted in-laws.
I still have lingering symptoms from last Monday's viral attack, so will be staying off the booze. However, my meat-free diet will be taking a day off.
So all that criticism of Boris telling people to go out and kill their grannies has mellowed somewhat.
A) Sadly none of the older generation are still with us.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
Merry Christmas all!
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
One of the biggest challenges that the UK faces is a metastasising but completely useless and unproductive state. The civil service is becoming less effective, yet increasingly political, and ever more voracious when it comes to taxpayers' money. The NHS, the Bank of England, the OBR, the Home Office - have we seen a quango or department that isn't a total shitshow in recent years? You could say the Tories have done nothing about it, and you'd be right, but the indications are that Starmer would hand greater power to organisations like the OBR, making the task of elected politicians to turn the country around even harder.
Robin McAlpine of Common Weal, has a few ideas, applicable not just for Scotland.
My advice to Starmer, FWIW, would be to focus on three big things, and concentrate on fixing them. Accept that you won’t fix everything, and accept that some things are insoluble.
Housing, Healthcare and...Industry?
I would have the State commission housebuilding to try and drive up volumes. I would increase medical training places so that they exceed the long term requirements of the NHS, and I would do whatever it took to attract investment in future industries to Britain.
I’d probably go for housing, social care and justice.
Healthcare is probably insoluble and the government has a lousy industrial record.
As a break from the crossword, some sage words from Hardman:
Starmer won the Labour leadership in part because he didn’t give too strong a sense of what he was against or for. When I spoke to many MPs who ended up backing him during that contest in 2020, even they repeatedly said “he hasn’t said that much about what he believes yet”.
[Labour] has a team at its HQ working on readiness for government that is known by superstitious staff as the “team with no name” because they fear cursing their chances by seeming too presumptive about a victory.
Starmer needs his party to know what it is facing so it will support him through major reforms early on. He needs the public to be well aware of that so it buys into what will have to be a long-term project.
One of the reasons the Tories are so out of love with being in power is that it is hard, relentless and wearing. It is also easy to fail to deliver on all of your priorities, which is something Sunak is having to contemplate given that he and his predecessors don’t have much evidence of Tory achievements other than on education reform. If and when Labour gets into government on a “time for change” ticket, it won’t have any time to work out what it wants to do, or to change course because the reforms would be too unpopular with certain special interest groups. It barely has much time…
That creates a stick or twist dilemma for Starmer in an election year. Sticking with the current cautious approach will probably be enough to get Labour over the line this time, so woeful is the state of the Tories. But it risks leaving the party bereft of the big ideas and momentum that will propel it to start the business of change. Starmer rightly admires Thatcher for being clear about how she would transform Britain, and even more so for the fact she managed it. It’s his turn to harness that for his own purpose.
Not sure I agree with any of that:
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more. - Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see. - power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so. - there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
Merry Christmas all!
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
One of the biggest challenges that the UK faces is a metastasising but completely useless and unproductive state. The civil service is becoming less effective, yet increasingly political, and ever more voracious when it comes to taxpayers' money. The NHS, the Bank of England, the OBR, the Home Office - have we seen a quango or department that isn't a total shitshow in recent years? You could say the Tories have done nothing about it, and you'd be right, but the indications are that Starmer would hand greater power to organisations like the OBR, making the task of elected politicians to turn the country around even harder.
Robin McAlpine of Common Weal, has a few ideas, applicable not just for Scotland.
My advice to Starmer, FWIW, would be to focus on three big things, and concentrate on fixing them. Accept that you won’t fix everything, and accept that some things are insoluble.
Housing, Healthcare and...Industry?
I would have the State commission housebuilding to try and drive up volumes. I would increase medical training places so that they exceed the long term requirements of the NHS, and I would do whatever it took to attract investment in future industries to Britain.
I’d probably go for housing, social care and justice.
Healthcare is probably insoluble and the government has a lousy industrial record.
And yet there are somethings that should be a relatively quick fix, easy to understand/explain to voters and can be presented as an obvious “win”
Doctors training places are one. AIUI there are more qualified candidates than places. But expansion of places should be relatively achievable and is just a matter of money (but small amounts in the scheme of things).
Sure it will take 5+ years before it comes through but I think you can sell to the voters anyway because it’s a simple concept (we are training more doctors).
The post qualification experience system is I believe messed up and that’s probably a harder fix
Comments
GLAS(gow)
No way = NO ST(reet)
The definition is the philosopher Isaiah Berlin.
ENOSIS - ENO (Return of ONE) + S (South - a direction) + IS.
Enosis is the aim of the unification of Greece and Cyprus held by some Greeks.
PIGLET - dual cryptic definitions. David Cameron’s name for Boris Johnson was the ‘greased piglet'. So he partly called Boris piglet. Napoleon in Animal Farm is a pig so his offspring (issue) would be a piglet.
Glas(gow) no St
GLAS most of UK city
NO ST no street
GLASNOST opening up
EDIT snap
Glasnost was the Soviet policy of opening up that occurred during Mikhail Gorbachev’s Presidency of the Soviet Union.
23 across. 27 across. 20 down.
20D Cheney?
27A then possibly ends in elsky?
Legendas Brazilian broadcaster?
Leyen, Sad,
Nope - can't explain!
Zen with el inside and sky
DINAH - sounds like diner, a place to eat.
Dinah Washington, the singer.
CHENEY. CHE (Revolutionary Che Guevara) + NEY (French soldier. Marshal Key).
Dick Cheney. A Republican who was George W Bush’s Vice President
27 across. You are on the right lines.
Dinah Washington
ZELENSKY - ZEN (calm) around (taking on) EL (the Spanish) + SKY (broadcaster)
Volodymyr Zelensky is President of Ukraine.
All done and dusted!
It's been great fun doing this once again and many thanks to Mike and TSE for indulging me each year. Thanks also to everyone who has contributed to solving the crossword.
Same time, same place, next year.
That's all folks!
I've really enjoyed it
I see my legendary puzzle solving abilities are not needed.
There are lots of people on shift work today, keeping the country running.
I think Sandra and I solved ten clues each
A rather high score draw!
And thanks for the crossword, Mr St John.
(Especially when I remember how to change my Avatar).
I'm I'm also thinking about BHers having a tough time.
I'm taking an impromptu Christmas Box on a long stick round for a friend this who is self-isolating with Covid today, and like me lives on his own, having caught it at his own gym's Christmas Party.
A couple of home cooked dishes for later in the weak, a loaf of bread that is currently baking in the machine, mince pies and so on.
And my sister is in hospital from a few days ago until perhaps early Jan, having a condition stabilised that they have not identified yet. Unlikely to be diabetes, fortunately, as that would have been detected immediately I think.
Look after yourselves and everyone around you as you are able.
I'll be raising my glass to everyone hoping for a better 2024.
Hope that counts
So that's Southampton 20 Rest of the World 8
Often ahead of the game with news and insight, and with sufficiently indulgent moderation that allows us to wibble on about anything and everything.
If this is your first Christmas since the loss of a loved one, just remember all of the joyful Christmases you shared as you raise a glass in their memory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67819074
Just in case.
- Starmer told everybody what he believed in in the Labour leadership election, running on a Corbynite platform after spending years working for his "friend" Jeremy. He just chucked it all down the toilet a few months he got elected and didn't need the Party membership's support any more.
- Starmer doesn't have any "long-term projects" as far as I can see, at least none he won't ditch at the first whiff of unpopularity, except possibly house-building, which has beaten many better men than him, and whose benefits won't show up for many years anyway. Other than that, what is there? They're abandoning the £28 billion/year green growth crap. Closer ties with the EU won't do much if anything and the EU shows no interest in the wholesale rewriting of our relationship that would be needed. And there's nothing else that I can see.
- power is certainly wearing at a time when crises come one after the other and living standards are falling if you don't have any solutions - in other words if you aren't up to the job. Mrs Thatcher thrived on that, but she was an exception - she seemed to tolerate, or even relish, being unpopular as long as she knew she was right. But years in opposition is just as wearing, perhaps more so.
- there's a reason Starmer isn't clear about how he intends to transform Britain - he hasn't the foggiest idea how to do it. Anything he wants to do will have to be paid for, and there's no money. And he doesn't have either the instincts (like Mrs Thatcher) or the knowledge (like Nigel Lawson) of how to create wealth. And his party and its policies would strangle wealth generation even more than the current government have done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67819075
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy
And now I'm off to my younger daughter's and grandchildren for Xmas lunch, booze, games, possibly telly and zzzz.
The line I have highlighted is the Tories final attack line. We're utterly shit, but you have to vote for us because we think the alternative is worse.
My instinct is that if they can find a way to weaponise this, there are still enough receptive ears to belay a rout and deliver only a solid defeat. But they would need something specific and resonant. They can't attack Labour tax plans because they've just put taxes up to the record level in peacetime. They can't talk about Labour waste as they're wasting vast billions. They can't talk about Law and Order as they're telling judges to let rapists off as there's no prison spaces to put them in. Etc etc etc.
The truth is the opposite of Fishing's line. Nobody can trash this country harder than the current government. Nobody. And when the remaining PB Tories turn out the lights at night I suspect they know it too.
What do they have in reserve they can throw at Starmer? The Torygraph is picking at his time as DPP - perhaps a black swan pulled out of a closet somewhere?
I'm crap at "cryptic" puzzles, far prefer the "easy" version of crosswords!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enosis_(disambiguation)
PS And this too (the H being marked not by a letter but a sort of accent-type mark on the E)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henosis
Interesting how it's got the only one meaning in English outside theology/philosophy, though.
Special thanks to Mike, TSE, and everyone else who's either involved in running the site or who has contributed articles.
It's been a lot of fun making the odd cameo appearance on here (mainly on election nights) and very best wishes to everyone and their loved ones for the year ahead.
2024 is obviously going to be stacked for elections - not just the US and UK, but other biggies such as India, Indonesia, Mexico, and a host of others.
I'll aim to do a full election list with dates, as well as my list of 2023 albums (still have Blur and OMD to listen to) and a quick look ahead to potential 2024 albums, in due course.
Thanks,
DC
I still have lingering symptoms from last Monday's viral attack, so will be staying off the booze. However, my meat-free diet will be taking a day off.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cVWdbO6FFfw - watch to the end...
Oh, and a merry Christmas to all!
Very much a King's speech written in preparedness for a likely Starmer government next year I would say. Much less about Jesus and Christianity than his mother had too
Merry Christmas from the left coast one and all
https://twitter.com/SythUK/status/1739253169031434291
That seems a little CGI, but some Russians are apparently claiming that the SU-34 shot down yesterday was shot down by an F16...
Question - is 3 down "Poland" like I opined?
I would have the State commission housebuilding to try and drive up volumes. I would increase medical training places so that they exceed the long term requirements of the NHS, and I would do whatever it took to attract investment in future industries to Britain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12898993/turkeys-rotten-families-blast-supermarkets.html
Turkeygate would never happen under a Starmer-led government.
But Lech himself is NOT a country.
Thanks btw for your Morrisons Nyetimber tip, about to try it out.
(Lights touch paper and retires to safe distance)
Healthcare is probably insoluble and the government has a lousy industrial record.
Doctors training places are one. AIUI there are more qualified candidates than places. But expansion of places should be relatively achievable and is just a matter of money (but small amounts in the scheme of things).
Sure it will take 5+ years before it comes through but I think you can sell to the voters anyway because it’s a simple concept (we are training more doctors).
The post qualification experience system is I believe messed up and that’s probably a harder fix
It was about reconciliation and goodwill to all, regardless of religion, which is what is sorely needed this year.
Except Vladimir Putin, the leadership of Hamas and Bibi.
#NakatomiTowersNeverForget