In other news I’m attempting for the first time, to cook yams. I’ve passed them so many times, scruffy old things alongside the shinier but more dangerous looking cassava, but never thought to try them.
I plucked a reasonably straight and unpockmarked puna yam from the pile at one of the many grocers on Deptford high street - recently unfairly disrespected by Leon who has never visited, and would feel right at home among the at least a dozen shops and restaurants from indochina (mainly Vietnam - Deptford has one of if not the largest Viet community in London).
They are chopped and currently boiling. The starch scum in the pan smells and looks unnervingly like cum.
Going to roast them with tonight’s toad in the hole. I’ll let you know how they turn out.
You're not selling the idea to me tbh.
Never tried them and now most certainly never will.
I doubt they're a patch on turnips.
Simply ejaculate into a pan of boiled turnips to give the illusion of cooking yams.
Goes LOOOONG way toward explaining lack of enthusiasm for English cuisine. ESPECIALLY outside of England.
There was a big trend in the war for making do - see also mock turtle.
Slightly on topic. Taiwan is a fascinating place. Plenty go for business, but almost nobody for pleasure. It's got rainforest. The highest mountain east of the Himalayas. Beaches. Ultra modern cities and crookbacked women in conical hats transplanting rice. Natural hot springs. Loads of history too. Weather isn't great, mind.
I watch an embarrassing amount of cookery shows (both TV and YT) and I've still yet to happen on someone visiting Taiwan. I'm not sure if it's just rubbish or if there is sensitivity towards the Chinese market. I'm guessing the latter though.
You should watch Eat Drink Man Woman. Romantic comedy set in Taiwan involving lots of cooking.
Tampopo is one of my favourite films - so this sounds ideal.
I love Tampopo! An odd film in many ways, but very adorable in its peculiarity. One of the best films about food culture.
I used to buy it regularly but on the odd occasion when it reported on a topic I knew well, it was more likely than not that it was wrong. I stopped buying it when it conducted a tedious campaign about offshore companies. It was my subject way back then, and I could easily tell that their reporter/informant had a poor grasp of international tax. I suspect he was UK Inspector 'reaching up' into areas he'd never practised.
There were so many basic errors that I couldn't be bothered to read it anymore and stopped buying. Naturally the episode made me more sceptical about the veracity of its reporting in other areas, where I had no specialist knowledge. Its credibility was therefore damaged beyond repair, as far as I was concerned.
This is a pity, because it has conducted some brilliant campaigns in the past and its work on the PO Scandal has been outstanding. Its good work is tarnished by too much shoddy stuff though. This is not something one would say of Computer Weekly, or Nick Wallis, so it's hardly surprising that those who want the true story of the Scandal look to them.
A majority of Republican primary voters in CBS News polling — 81% — said that they agreed with President Trump's statement that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country," and 47% of voters overall said they agreed with it. https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1746588204042502150
The US is in a very dark place.
The question specified "immigrants entering illegally" rather than all immigrants, so the headline is rather misleading.
I suspect Britons views of illegal immigrants are not much more flattering, even if the inflammatory "poisoning the blood" is used.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
I think it's a bit previous to dwell on Starmer's failures when we are still grappling with Johnson's.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
He's something of a tabula rasa, which is ok for now but eventually he has to write something on the tablet and of course he then becomes a hostage to fortune.
This country has an in-built suspicion of Labour and will normally only allow it to Govern when two conditions apply. First, the natural Party of Government has to fail and secondly, the Opposition mustn't have any policies or people who might frighten the horses.
Both conditions apply at the moment, hence the huge poll leads.
Starmer should be fine for a full five years, maybe even longer, but sooner or later we'll find something to bring him down.
I used to buy it regularly but on the odd occasion when it reported on a topic I knew well, it was more likely than not that it was wrong. I stopped buying it when it conducted a tedious campaign about offshore companies. It was my subject way back then, and I could easily tell that their reporter/informant had a poor grasp of international tax. I suspect he was UK Inspector 'reaching up' into areas he'd never practised.
There were so many basic errors that I couldn't be bothered to read it anymore and stopped buying. Naturally the episode made me more sceptical about the veracity of its reporting in other areas, where I had no specialist knowledge. Its credibility was therefore damaged beyond repair, as far as I was concerned.
This is a pity, because it has conducted some brilliant campaigns in the past and its work on the PO Scandal has been outstanding. Its good work is tarnished by too much shoddy stuff though. This is not something one would say of Computer Weekly, or Nick Wallis, so it's hardly surprising that those who want the true story of the Scandal look to them.
Still read the covers though.
It's always been one of the places stories that can't make it into the national press go - whether because they're inadequately sourced or researched - or just too hot to handle. That's a useful role, and readers (I'm not one either, these days) have to accept the rough with the smooth.
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
He's something of a tabula rasa, which is ok for now but eventually he has to write something on the tablet and of course he then becomes a hostage to fortune.
This country has an in-built suspicion of Labour and will normally only allow it to Govern when two conditions apply. First, the natural Party of Government has to fail and secondly, the Opposition mustn't have any policies or people who might frighten the horses.
Both conditions apply at the moment, hence the huge poll leads.
Starmer should be fine for a full five years, maybe even longer, but sooner or later we'll find something to bring him down.
And whilst implying one thing then doing another can be useful to get things done (see his praise of Corbynism in order to stand by while it buried itself), it's not sustainable forever.
What might save him from a proper grisly fate is his age. When he was elected, plan A must have been to lose in 2023 and resign- a Kinnock figure, not a Blair. Moses leading his people through the wilderness, not making it into the Promised Land.
Can't see him doing Plan B (being PM) more than a term and a half. That might give him a chance to do the rare thing- quit while he's ahead. As a non-life time politician, he's got a better chance than most of getting that right.
I used to buy it regularly but on the odd occasion when it reported on a topic I knew well, it was more likely than not that it was wrong. I stopped buying it when it conducted a tedious campaign about offshore companies. It was my subject way back then, and I could easily tell that their reporter/informant had a poor grasp of international tax. I suspect he was UK Inspector 'reaching up' into areas he'd never practised.
There were so many basic errors that I couldn't be bothered to read it anymore and stopped buying. Naturally the episode made me more sceptical about the veracity of its reporting in other areas, where I had no specialist knowledge. Its credibility was therefore damaged beyond repair, as far as I was concerned.
This is a pity, because it has conducted some brilliant campaigns in the past and its work on the PO Scandal has been outstanding. Its good work is tarnished by too much shoddy stuff though. This is not something one would say of Computer Weekly, or Nick Wallis, so it's hardly surprising that those who want the true story of the Scandal look to them.
Still read the covers though.
Private Eye has always been patchy in both its humour and journalism, and with the latter has some peculiar hobbyhorses. Still worth a read though.
I find all journalists are inaccurate to greater or lesser degrees when writing about things of which I have particular knowledge, so not specific to Private Eye. It is part of the process of Journalism to simplify stories and edit out distracting detail.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
I think it's a bit previous to dwell on Starmer's failures when we are still grappling with Johnson's.
I'm not dwelling on Starmer's failures: I'm considering if there are any signs of character traits or poor thinking that may cause him problems down the line. I can imagine some of the team around him will be doing the same; either to try to avoid those potholes, or to be able to exploit them in the future.
No-one is perfect; we all have flaws. Knowing those flaws can help you avoid them, or mitigate the damage they can cause.
In Johnson's case, those flaws were visible way back, and they were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle. He did not have the intelligence to learn from them. That is his tragedy.
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
So will be remembered as well as Eden was over Suez?
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
I tend to agree. In particular, the fact he was seriously ill with Covid before he made the mistakes isn't given enough consideration by many. With hindsight, he should have taken longer out to recover.
(In fact, I wonder if a national coalition government during Covid might have been more useful to both the country and Boris...)
But the fact remains the same character flaws that brought Johnson down were all present *before* GE2019. They cannot be ignored.
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
The more that comes out, the worse he will be regarded.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
I think it's a bit previous to dwell on Starmer's failures when we are still grappling with Johnson's.
I'm not dwelling on Starmer's failures: I'm considering if there are any signs of character traits or poor thinking that may cause him problems down the line. I can imagine some of the team around him will be doing the same; either to try to avoid those potholes, or to be able to exploit them in the future.
No-one is perfect; we all have flaws. Knowing those flaws can help you avoid them, or mitigate the damage they can cause.
In Johnson's case, those flaws were visible way back, and they were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle. He did not have the intelligence to learn from them. That is his tragedy.
Funnily enough, I reckon Boris did learn from the multiple debacles of his career. Unfortunately for him (and us), the lesson he learned was "I can get away with stuff that would destroy mere mortals, because I am Bozzeus, the new King of the Gods." Which turned out to be the wrong lesson.
There was very likely going to be another debacle which destroyed him rapidly and utterly, without even the opportunity to fail upwards to the EU Commission. It was always a question of when.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
No-one really knows who SKS is, what he will do, or how he will be.
Not that accurate, seeing as it puts my dad’s postcode in the wrong constituency.
I think it undercooks the present Tory position. It makes assumptions on DKs returning, that we don't know will be valid, and is a polling regression assessment solely based on demographics, and doesn't take into account tactical voting.
I used to buy it regularly but on the odd occasion when it reported on a topic I knew well, it was more likely than not that it was wrong. I stopped buying it when it conducted a tedious campaign about offshore companies. It was my subject way back then, and I could easily tell that their reporter/informant had a poor grasp of international tax. I suspect he was UK Inspector 'reaching up' into areas he'd never practised.
There were so many basic errors that I couldn't be bothered to read it anymore and stopped buying. Naturally the episode made me more sceptical about the veracity of its reporting in other areas, where I had no specialist knowledge. Its credibility was therefore damaged beyond repair, as far as I was concerned.
This is a pity, because it has conducted some brilliant campaigns in the past and its work on the PO Scandal has been outstanding. Its good work is tarnished by too much shoddy stuff though. This is not something one would say of Computer Weekly, or Nick Wallis, so it's hardly surprising that those who want the true story of the Scandal look to them.
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
So will be remembered as well as Eden was over Suez?
Is there anyone, nowadays, who speaks well of the Suez debacle?
1. MRP shows a middle case where its 1997. Best case is that Reform "we are pledged to destroy the Conservative Party" UK go away and its 2005. But as Frost states no tactical voting assumed, the worst case is ELE. 2. Tory pants are being shat. Simon Ding Dong Clarke very upset on twitter. 3. A Big Push through the Ardennes spring and a 2nd May election remains the best Tory shot. But it won't happen. 4. GET RISHI will now become deafening. And not just from morons and lunatics like Dorries or Jenkyns. Imminent humiliation and unemployment will sharpen the minds even of the thickest mince backbench MP 5. Once the Tories get thrashed on 2nd May in the locals, expect a putsch fairly quickly 6. Rishi may survive. Or may fall to someone like Braverman. Either way it will be funny 7. Clarke is *pleading* to stop the boats. If only the Tories stop the boats they are sure to win. So watch the EHRC bomb go off and perhaps some tow back drowning disaster 8. This may firm up some votes from RefUK (though if you can drown migrants like that why did you take so long). Anyone with a soul looks on in horror, and the poll gap stays enormous 9. Even if we do see some easing of the economy later in the year, numerous polls have shown punters will not give the Tories any credit
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
No-one really knows who SKS is, what he will do, or how he will be.
Maybe even he doesn't.
And yet the still want him a lot more than Sunak...
Not that accurate, seeing as it puts my dad’s postcode in the wrong constituency.
I think it undercooks the present Tory position. It makes assumptions on DKs returning, that we don't know will be valid, and is a polling regression assessment solely based on demographics, and doesn't take into account tactical voting.
MRP as a model can't cope with Lib Dems doing 40 ultra local campaigns of a "local voice for Westminster" type, and a lot of Conservative woe being down to red and yellow aiming their fire at the blue team rather than each other.
But I trust YouGov to do their job as well as they can- their reputation depends on it. What I don't trust is the assumptions and spin, which have clearly been chosen to push a simplistic "Rishi's problem is not being right wing enough" message.
(It's basically the same approach as the "if only there was one anti-Tory candidate in each seat, moderate leftism would rule forever" analyses we get every election. They're tosh as well.)
The exchange rate is pretty irrelevant, but the disruption to the supply chain from leaving the single market, at the same time as we conduct a policy of squeezing suppliers, quite likely has an effect. (Anecdotally, I've two family members whose medications have been affected, several times.) I'd be interested in @Foxy 's take.
...The NHS is increasingly having to issue price concessions on products under which it agrees to increase its level of reimbursement to pharmacists due to spikes in demand and market prices.
There were 152 such concessions in December 2023 compared with 20 in June 2016, the month of the Brexit referendum, when the UK’s stated intention to leave the EU hit the value of sterling.
There are also concerns that a government policy to limit NHS spending on branded drugs is having an effect on the pharmaceutical industry’s willingness to invest in supplying the UK. There is a cap on the total allowed sales value of branded medicines to the NHS each year, which grows at an agreed rate of 2% per annum.
Any medicine sales above the cap are paid back to the government via a levy charged on companies’ sales revenues. A scheme with a 4% cap has been introduced for the next five years after consultations with the pharmaceutical industry...
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
So will be remembered as well as Eden was over Suez?
Is there anyone, nowadays, who speaks well of the Suez debacle?
No, but Eden continued to have his admirers for a while. I can recall it being debated by my parents' generation when I was a kid.
The Brexit verdict won't be written by anyone who actually voted in the referendum.
Not that accurate, seeing as it puts my dad’s postcode in the wrong constituency.
I think it undercooks the present Tory position. It makes assumptions on DKs returning, that we don't know will be valid, and is a polling regression assessment solely based on demographics, and doesn't take into account tactical voting.
I think there is some constituency knowledge so tactical voting may be accounted for to a degree. Building in swingback is perhaps a more valid criticism of how they have done it.
While the MRP in 2017 was very accurate, I don't think that has been the case on other occasions.
That said, it does look about right to me, possibly too optimistic for the LDs as other polling does show Labour doing well in Shire SE and SW England too.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
No-one really knows who SKS is, what he will do, or how he will be.
Maybe even he doesn't.
That's the normal situation, though - Johnson is the exception, where it was blindingly obvious what we would get, although so very many chose not to look. Few foresaw what we would be getting with Mrs T; when Major got the job the common reaction was "who?". Blair was better known by the time he got the job, but who foresaw he'd end by killing millions of people just to keep the Americans happy? Brown was also well known, surprised on the upside during the GFC but was otherwise very predictable. With Cameron no-one really knew what we'd be getting, and of course the coalition was a surprise. Mrs May was also still an enigma when she took over, and as for Truss, who predicted that?
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
No-one really knows who SKS is, what he will do, or how he will be.
Maybe even he doesn't.
And yet the still want him a lot more than Sunak...
I'm reminded a bit of Major, who was very effective at giving everyone the impression that he agreed with them. Which worked very well until it didn't. Wilson was much the same, wasn't he?
(Joining the dots, I suspect what Starmer is heading for is a kind of nu-Wilsonian social democracy with lots of tactical triangulation. Lefter than my personal preference, but seems worth a try.)
The exchange rate is pretty irrelevant, but the disruption to the supply chain from leaving the single market, at the same time as we conduct a policy of squeezing suppliers, quite likely has an effect. (Anecdotally, I've two family members whose medications have been affected, several times.) I'd be interested in @Foxy 's take.
...The NHS is increasingly having to issue price concessions on products under which it agrees to increase its level of reimbursement to pharmacists due to spikes in demand and market prices.
There were 152 such concessions in December 2023 compared with 20 in June 2016, the month of the Brexit referendum, when the UK’s stated intention to leave the EU hit the value of sterling.
There are also concerns that a government policy to limit NHS spending on branded drugs is having an effect on the pharmaceutical industry’s willingness to invest in supplying the UK. There is a cap on the total allowed sales value of branded medicines to the NHS each year, which grows at an agreed rate of 2% per annum.
Any medicine sales above the cap are paid back to the government via a levy charged on companies’ sales revenues. A scheme with a 4% cap has been introduced for the next five years after consultations with the pharmaceutical industry...
Certainly my patients have often struggled to get pharmaceuticals, but I don't think it down it down to Brexit as much as aggressive negotiation by the NHS procurement.
If a medication sells for €10 in Germany, but £5 in the UK and supplies are limited, which market would any business prioritise?
All roasters, how did that clown ever get to be ruining the country
Why would he be responsible for the actions of his brother in law?
Just another nail in the clown's coffin, his wife is desperately shilling to get her family into the country, Useless is wrecking the place with the SNP and their bunch of grifters. He is responsible for lots of things for sure but for sure not being able to run a bath never mind a country. They make the Tories look honest
You could not make it up , worst country in the developed world for drugs and the FM has a drug dealer in the family, kind of sums up how Scotland is being run just now. It is like a banana republic.
Still don’t understand why he is responsible for his sister marrying a scumbag.
If he had used his position to help said scumbag… but there’s no report of that.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
No-one really knows who SKS is, what he will do, or how he will be.
Maybe even he doesn't.
That's the normal situation, though - Johnson is the exception, where it was blindingly obvious what we would get, although so very many chose not to look. Few foresaw what we would be getting with Mrs T; when Major got the job the common reaction was "who?". Blair was better known by the time he got the job, but who foresaw he'd end by killing millions of people just to keep the Americans happy? Brown was also well known, surprised on the upside during the GFC but was otherwise very predictable. With Cameron no-one really knew what we'd be getting, and of course the coalition was a surprise. Mrs May was also still an enigma when she took over, and as for Truss, who predicted that?
It's Starmer's timidity that will bring him down. There is hunger for change, though disagreement on what change is needed on even possible.
I think the same of Davey too, if he survives the PO Scandal. There is nearly nothing of interest in the LD manifesto either.
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
So will be remembered as well as Eden was over Suez?
Is there anyone, nowadays, who speaks well of the Suez debacle?
Eden would certainly be a contender for the title of Worst PM Since WW2. Certainly runs Johnson close. (Truss too fleeting to qualify.)
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
...new polling for The Times shows significant scepticism over the Rwanda deportation scheme, with 40 per cent of voters backing Labour’s pledge to scrap the plan.
Polling by YouGov found that voters have little faith in either of the two main parties to deal with cross-Channel migrants, with 22 per cent saying Labour would do a better job and 16 per cent backing the Conservatives. Almost half (47 per cent) said they trusted neither of the two main parties on the issue.
Asked about the government’s Rwanda policy, 34 per cent backed it, including 67 per cent of Conservative voters, while 14 per cent of Tories said it should be scrapped.
Johnson got Brexit done which was a huge achievement and will form the basis of his legacy. Plus he was a "wartime" leader and was injured in battle to boot.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
I tend to agree. In particular, the fact he was seriously ill with Covid before he made the mistakes isn't given enough consideration by many. With hindsight, he should have taken longer out to recover.
(In fact, I wonder if a national coalition government during Covid might have been more useful to both the country and Boris...)
But the fact remains the same character flaws that brought Johnson down were all present *before* GE2019. They cannot be ignored.
Johnson was never seriously ill with covid. He had a mild dose, had some publicity in the hospital and left after a few days , he had low dose oxygen for a short spell, load of bollox and just a publicity stunt.
Leaving aside the chances of a mistranslation (unlikely with a BBC Russia editor), this is what @NickPalmer , @bigjohnowls et al forget or ignore. Putin's Russia is imperialist, and wants to expand its empire. The idea of him just settling for a small slice of Ukraine is ridiculous.
Johnson was lazy and entitled and, according to those who knew him at school, always was.
They often said that Mao made three errors for every seven things he did right.
Johnson made seven errors for every three things he got right, albeit those three things were pretty amazing. The errors in the end did for him.
Last paragraph. "albeit those three things were pretty amazing".
An attempt at rehabilitating the disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson if I am not mistaken.
"He got Brexit done". Did he? Why then was the Windsor Framework required?
I dare not even guess what the two remaining "amazing things" were. Oh go on, I'll try just one. He invented all the vaccines. Am I right?
IMV Boris is not as brilliant and hard-done-by as some of his few remaining fanbois claim, nor as venal and bad as his fiercest critics maintain. The critics probably are nearest the truth, though.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
I think it's a bit previous to dwell on Starmer's failures when we are still grappling with Johnson's.
I'm not dwelling on Starmer's failures: I'm considering if there are any signs of character traits or poor thinking that may cause him problems down the line. I can imagine some of the team around him will be doing the same; either to try to avoid those potholes, or to be able to exploit them in the future.
No-one is perfect; we all have flaws. Knowing those flaws can help you avoid them, or mitigate the damage they can cause.
In Johnson's case, those flaws were visible way back, and they were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle. He did not have the intelligence to learn from them. That is his tragedy.
Starmer's most obvious flaw is that he is a lawyer, and might therefore see new laws as the main weapon in his arsenal, and believe that economic and social problems can be legislated away.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
I think it's a bit previous to dwell on Starmer's failures when we are still grappling with Johnson's.
I'm not dwelling on Starmer's failures: I'm considering if there are any signs of character traits or poor thinking that may cause him problems down the line. I can imagine some of the team around him will be doing the same; either to try to avoid those potholes, or to be able to exploit them in the future.
No-one is perfect; we all have flaws. Knowing those flaws can help you avoid them, or mitigate the damage they can cause.
In Johnson's case, those flaws were visible way back, and they were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle. He did not have the intelligence to learn from them. That is his tragedy.
Starmer's most obvious flaw is that he is a lawyer, and might therefore see new laws as the main weapon in his arsenal, and believe that economic and social problems can be legislated away.
That isn't necessarily the case. As Director of Public Prosecution, he was pretty used to seeing laws more honoured in the breach than the observance.
A lot of lawyers have a more realistic idea than most people of the limitations of trying to legislate problems away.
Leaving aside the chances of a mistranslation (unlikely with a BBC Russia editor), this is what @NickPalmer , @bigjohnowls et al forget or ignore. Putin's Russia is imperialist, and wants to expand its empire. The idea of him just settling for a small slice of Ukraine is ridiculous.
The translation is fine but necessarily slightly abstracted from the sense of the original. An exact translation doesn't work because there is no explicit present tense of "to be" or any use of "to do" as an auxiliary verb in Russian.
It's also on the Friendship Bridge between Russia and Estonia at Narva. Except they added a bear to the iconography.
Amazing to think that the Conservatives gained a seat from Labour in a by-election less than 3 years ago.
And whilst the government would have seen a mid-term slump, the damage is all down to some all-too-predictable mistakes / decisions by Johnson. He was the architect of all of this, and it was all too predictable.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
I think it's a bit previous to dwell on Starmer's failures when we are still grappling with Johnson's.
I'm not dwelling on Starmer's failures: I'm considering if there are any signs of character traits or poor thinking that may cause him problems down the line. I can imagine some of the team around him will be doing the same; either to try to avoid those potholes, or to be able to exploit them in the future.
No-one is perfect; we all have flaws. Knowing those flaws can help you avoid them, or mitigate the damage they can cause.
In Johnson's case, those flaws were visible way back, and they were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle. He did not have the intelligence to learn from them. That is his tragedy.
Starmer's most obvious flaw is that he is a lawyer, and might therefore see new laws as the main weapon in his arsenal, and believe that economic and social problems can be legislated away.
In my experience it is non lawyers and political types who tend to believe these sort of things rather than lawyers who have to deal with the daily reality of poor laws not really helping things. Of course SKS is a political type as well as a lawyer so he might well suffer such delusions.
Put my postcode into the Telegraph MRP to see who’d be in charge after the GE, and it’s… Conservative. Struck me that I didn’t actually know the name of my MP, how many others on here can say that?
Fair play to Andy Burnham for fronting up the Rochdale Grooming Report press conference
I find him much more likeable, persuasive and candid than Starmer. I wish he was our future Labour PM, not Skyr Royale
I’ve liked Burnham ever since his appearance at Anfield on the anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy.
As the Sports Minister, he was booed by the crowd, but turned them around and promised them that they would see justice - then followed through and ensured that it happened.
I used to buy it regularly but on the odd occasion when it reported on a topic I knew well, it was more likely than not that it was wrong. I stopped buying it when it conducted a tedious campaign about offshore companies. It was my subject way back then, and I could easily tell that their reporter/informant had a poor grasp of international tax. I suspect he was UK Inspector 'reaching up' into areas he'd never practised.
There were so many basic errors that I couldn't be bothered to read it anymore and stopped buying. Naturally the episode made me more sceptical about the veracity of its reporting in other areas, where I had no specialist knowledge. Its credibility was therefore damaged beyond repair, as far as I was concerned.
This is a pity, because it has conducted some brilliant campaigns in the past and its work on the PO Scandal has been outstanding. Its good work is tarnished by too much shoddy stuff though. This is not something one would say of Computer Weekly, or Nick Wallis, so it's hardly surprising that those who want the true story of the Scandal look to them.
Still read the covers though.
Private Eye has always been patchy in both its humour and journalism, and with the latter has some peculiar hobbyhorses. Still worth a read though.
I find all journalists are inaccurate to greater or lesser degrees when writing about things of which I have particular knowledge, so not specific to Private Eye. It is part of the process of Journalism to simplify stories and edit out distracting detail.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about simplification, I mean fundamental errors, like frinstance not knowing what a tax haven is, or the difference between a representative office and a permanent establishment. You need to know thee things if you are going to report on them.
Our Taxman In Private Eye didn't simplify, he just talked bollox, because he didn't grasp the basics.
@Casino_Royale I am very concerned by your final sentence. The USA is far from perfect but it's a free democracy and the only serious Western power checking the expansionism of repressive autocracies in Russia, Iran and China in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan respectively. And we've seen what happens to people that fall under its wing.
I hope you revisit your view.
Thanks for a considered and thoughtful response. I am by no means certain in my view and am not by any means lauding China. Instead, I am conveying a deeply pessimistic outlook whereby a Trump win (or someone of his ilk) means that the role that USA currently plays checking the expansionism of autocracies is lost. And even if not Trump, when I see how blindly partisan USA politics is I find it hard to imagine them continuing to be a free democracy over the next 20 years. I fervently hope I am wrong because I want democracy to win out.
One of the big problems as I see it is that the opponents of the USA have such an open goal to aim at. US policy in Central and South America; its role in toppling leftist democracies in Africa and supporting autocrats in their place; it’s blunderous attempts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan; its blatant attempt to control oil fields in Iraq. All give fodder to those who want to cosy up to Russia and China in smaller countries.
Lastly I am not sure that we can speak of China in the same tone as we do of Russia and Iran. Taiwan, for example; it is clearly Chinese, just a different brand of Chinese politics from the revolutionary mainland. China invading Taiwan, to a neutral observer, is nothing like the USA invading Iraq or staging a coup in Tanzania, for example. Nor is it like Iran funding terror groups, nor again is it like Russia invading Ukraine although I can see this is a more subtle distinction.
Please don’t misunderstand me-I am not arguing for a minute that China invading Taiwan would be a good thing, simply that I don’t think it would be worse than what the USA did in Iraq.
I am deeply concerned about the future and looking for the least worst option. Perhaps selfishly, of the options available I feel Chinese global dominance is least likely to end up with me or one of my kids being conscripted into a global war. To restate once more - if USA emerges from its current morass still a functioning but imperfect democracy, then let’s stick with them.
The USA withdrew from Iraq; its objective was not annexation. China, Russia and Iran use their muscle to intimidate, silence, bully, oppress or seek revenge against anyone they like, without any scruples or justice.
If our primary goal is peace and avoiding any sort of conflict at all costs then might will make right, and we will have to suffer what we must.
Otherwise, we will have to stand up to it.
Again, I'm just not sure that China does as you say (I fully agree Russia and Iran do). Perhaps that is a naive statement - happy to be shown evidence otherwise (I'm not ignoring the Uighurs - along with what was done to Tibet what China is doing to them is pretty horrific - I just think this smacks more of internal oppression than threatening the rest of the world).
I guess to turn the question around, is China interfering outside its borders in the same or worse way than the USA did/does in Iraq or Central America? Or perhaps they will do this in future if not checked?
What I see instead from China is a soft power advance that is pretty scary in its own way, but seems to involve pumping lots of resources into many states in e.g. Africa, rather than using the CIA, the Revolutionary Guard or the Wagner Group to kill the right people to destablise things.
I think China in Africa is about taking resources out, not pumping them in.
It is a modern version of colonialism.
Agreed, lazy writing on my part, it’s both ways. But my point is that Chinese colonialism (currently) appears less destructive than the European and American versions.
I used to buy it regularly but on the odd occasion when it reported on a topic I knew well, it was more likely than not that it was wrong. I stopped buying it when it conducted a tedious campaign about offshore companies. It was my subject way back then, and I could easily tell that their reporter/informant had a poor grasp of international tax. I suspect he was UK Inspector 'reaching up' into areas he'd never practised.
There were so many basic errors that I couldn't be bothered to read it anymore and stopped buying. Naturally the episode made me more sceptical about the veracity of its reporting in other areas, where I had no specialist knowledge. Its credibility was therefore damaged beyond repair, as far as I was concerned.
This is a pity, because it has conducted some brilliant campaigns in the past and its work on the PO Scandal has been outstanding. Its good work is tarnished by too much shoddy stuff though. This is not something one would say of Computer Weekly, or Nick Wallis, so it's hardly surprising that those who want the true story of the Scandal look to them.
Still read the covers though.
I had a similar experience with The Economist.
Once you know that the Economist is written by people with an average age of 25 and a *really* tight style guide, it all makes sense.
Comments
But it isn't, not really.
My views are strikingly similar to yours on this.
I used to buy it regularly but on the odd occasion when it reported on a topic I knew well, it was more likely than not that it was wrong. I stopped buying it when it conducted a tedious campaign about offshore companies. It was my subject way back then, and I could easily tell that their reporter/informant had a poor grasp of international tax. I suspect he was UK Inspector 'reaching up' into areas he'd never practised.
There were so many basic errors that I couldn't be bothered to read it anymore and stopped buying. Naturally the episode made me more sceptical about the veracity of its reporting in other areas, where I had no specialist knowledge. Its credibility was therefore damaged beyond repair, as far as I was concerned.
This is a pity, because it has conducted some brilliant campaigns in the past and its work on the PO Scandal has been outstanding. Its good work is tarnished by too much shoddy stuff though. This is not something one would say of Computer Weekly, or Nick Wallis, so it's hardly surprising that those who want the true story of the Scandal look to them.
Still read the covers though.
I suspect Britons views of illegal immigrants are not much more flattering, even if the inflammatory "poisoning the blood" is used.
Which brings me onto a controversial question: most political lives end in failure. Johnson's was predictable. Is Starmer's? What flaws of character/leadership/ethos are we seeing signs of now, that will cause him problems in the future?
This country has an in-built suspicion of Labour and will normally only allow it to Govern when two conditions apply. First, the natural Party of Government has to fail and secondly, the Opposition mustn't have any policies or people who might frighten the horses.
Both conditions apply at the moment, hence the huge poll leads.
Starmer should be fine for a full five years, maybe even longer, but sooner or later we'll find something to bring him down.
That's a useful role, and readers (I'm not one either, these days) have to accept the rough with the smooth.
Which means history might be kinder to him than many now think.
What might save him from a proper grisly fate is his age. When he was elected, plan A must have been to lose in 2023 and resign- a Kinnock figure, not a Blair. Moses leading his people through the wilderness, not making it into the Promised Land.
Can't see him doing Plan B (being PM) more than a term and a half. That might give him a chance to do the rare thing- quit while he's ahead. As a non-life time politician, he's got a better chance than most of getting that right.
I find all journalists are inaccurate to greater or lesser degrees when writing about things of which I have particular knowledge, so not specific to Private Eye. It is part of the process of Journalism to simplify stories and edit out distracting detail.
You had the feeling they were railing against power from the morning room of their club.
That is quite a unique position to have held. I think the contradictions became too much in the end.
No-one is perfect; we all have flaws. Knowing those flaws can help you avoid them, or mitigate the damage they can cause.
In Johnson's case, those flaws were visible way back, and they were all on show during the Garden Bridge debacle. He did not have the intelligence to learn from them. That is his tragedy.
(In fact, I wonder if a national coalition government during Covid might have been more useful to both the country and Boris...)
But the fact remains the same character flaws that brought Johnson down were all present *before* GE2019. They cannot be ignored.
They often said that Mao made three errors for every seven things he did right.
Johnson made seven errors for every three things he got right, albeit those three things were pretty amazing. The errors in the end did for him.
There was very likely going to be another debacle which destroyed him rapidly and utterly, without even the opportunity to fail upwards to the EU Commission. It was always a question of when.
Maybe even he doesn't.
https://conservativehome.com/2024/01/14/a-leadership-challenge-the-games-afoot/
1. MRP shows a middle case where its 1997. Best case is that Reform "we are pledged to destroy the Conservative Party" UK go away and its 2005. But as Frost states no tactical voting assumed, the worst case is ELE.
2. Tory pants are being shat. Simon Ding Dong Clarke very upset on twitter.
3. A Big Push through the
Ardennesspring and a 2nd May election remains the best Tory shot. But it won't happen.4. GET RISHI will now become deafening. And not just from morons and lunatics like Dorries or Jenkyns. Imminent humiliation and unemployment will sharpen the minds even of the thickest mince backbench MP
5. Once the Tories get thrashed on 2nd May in the locals, expect a putsch fairly quickly
6. Rishi may survive. Or may fall to someone like Braverman. Either way it will be funny
7. Clarke is *pleading* to stop the boats. If only the Tories stop the boats they are sure to win. So watch the EHRC bomb go off and perhaps some tow back drowning disaster
8. This may firm up some votes from RefUK (though if you can drown migrants like that why did you take so long). Anyone with a soul looks on in horror, and the poll gap stays enormous
9. Even if we do see some easing of the economy later in the year, numerous polls have shown punters will not give the Tories any credit
In short, MRP = 250123
But I trust YouGov to do their job as well as they can- their reputation depends on it. What I don't trust is the assumptions and spin, which have clearly been chosen to push a simplistic "Rishi's problem is not being right wing enough" message.
(It's basically the same approach as the "if only there was one anti-Tory candidate in each seat, moderate leftism would rule forever" analyses we get every election. They're tosh as well.)
NHS medicines shortage putting lives at risk, pharmacists warn
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/14/nhs-medicines-shortage-putting-lives-at-risk-pharmacists-warn
The exchange rate is pretty irrelevant, but the disruption to the supply chain from leaving the single market, at the same time as we conduct a policy of squeezing suppliers, quite likely has an effect.
(Anecdotally, I've two family members whose medications have been affected, several times.)
I'd be interested in @Foxy 's take.
...The NHS is increasingly having to issue price concessions on products under which it agrees to increase its level of reimbursement to pharmacists due to spikes in demand and market prices.
There were 152 such concessions in December 2023 compared with 20 in June 2016, the month of the Brexit referendum, when the UK’s stated intention to leave the EU hit the value of sterling.
There are also concerns that a government policy to limit NHS spending on branded drugs is having an effect on the pharmaceutical industry’s willingness to invest in supplying the UK. There is a cap on the total allowed sales value of branded medicines to the NHS each year, which grows at an agreed rate of 2% per annum.
Any medicine sales above the cap are paid back to the government via a levy charged on companies’ sales revenues. A scheme with a 4% cap has been introduced for the next five years after consultations with the pharmaceutical industry...
The Brexit verdict won't be written by anyone who actually voted in the referendum.
While the MRP in 2017 was very accurate, I don't think that has been the case on other occasions.
That said, it does look about right to me, possibly too optimistic for the LDs as other polling does show Labour doing well in Shire SE and SW England too.
https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1746784252312891463
(Joining the dots, I suspect what Starmer is heading for is a kind of nu-Wilsonian social democracy with lots of tactical triangulation. Lefter than my personal preference, but seems worth a try.)
If a medication sells for €10 in Germany, but £5 in the UK and supplies are limited, which market would any business prioritise?
1 short of big round number
I think the same of Davey too, if he survives the PO Scandal. There is nearly nothing of interest in the LD manifesto either.
...new polling for The Times shows significant scepticism over the Rwanda deportation scheme, with 40 per cent of voters backing Labour’s pledge to scrap the plan.
Polling by YouGov found that voters have little faith in either of the two main parties to deal with cross-Channel migrants, with 22 per cent saying Labour would do a better job and 16 per cent backing the Conservatives. Almost half (47 per cent) said they trusted neither of the two main parties on the issue.
Asked about the government’s Rwanda policy, 34 per cent backed it, including 67 per cent of Conservative voters, while 14 per cent of Tories said it should be scrapped.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/68e392f4-f32c-4e66-96dd-72a1b80ec436?shareToken=fd43c184ee4ff901251e88d0ac61139d
An attempt at rehabilitating the disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson if I am not mistaken.
"He got Brexit done". Did he? Why then was the Windsor Framework required?
I dare not even guess what the two remaining "amazing things" were. Oh go on, I'll try just one. He invented all the vaccines. Am I right?
https://news.sky.com/story/children-left-at-mercy-of-rochdale-grooming-gangs-and-dozens-of-men-still-pose-potential-risk-report-13048713
Incredibly, it looks like it is still going on. In the exact same pattern. WTAF
A lot of lawyers have a more realistic idea than most people of the limitations of trying to legislate problems away.
It's also on the Friendship Bridge between Russia and Estonia at Narva. Except they added a bear to the iconography.
#globalrussia
I find him much more likeable, persuasive and candid than Starmer. I wish he was our future Labour PM, not Skyr Royale
As the Sports Minister, he was booed by the crowd, but turned them around and promised them that they would see justice - then followed through and ensured that it happened.
Our Taxman In Private Eye didn't simplify, he just talked bollox, because he didn't grasp the basics.
Excl: The Home Office submitted plans to buy its own plane to deport migrants to Rwanda in 2022.
Rishi Sunak, as chancellor, blocked it on cost grounds:
Garden Bridge
Thames estuary airport
Oven-ready Brexit deal with no border down the Irish Sea