Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
You're not wrong. I believe the PM will be addressing the nation today on "small boats" and sending their occupants to a country in Africa.
It's becoming both dark and absurd. Is this really us? Surely it isn't.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
Under 50s, mind. Not under 30s or 18-25s. Not only are the Conservatives at a level that requires heroic changing of minds as these generations age, but RefCon combined is only 15% showing that appealing to RefUKers is unlikely to win them back anyone other than their pensioner vote.
Always funny how Lib Dem support is essentially the same at all ages.
That's because if you're voting Lib Dem in your 20s, you're already 50+ in your ways.
Liberal support used to dip for the older age groups, because those people came of political age during the post-war years when the party barely existed. The Liberals got noticed in 1962 with the Orpington by-election, and as the new voters from that era work their way up the age curve, the LibDem deficit with the elderly has almost gone.
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political atmosphere that has seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
Yes that's the danger: Tories go mad for a bit but Labour doesn't do enough to keep hold of power.
However, the route back is difficult given they are - and would be yet more - uncoalitionable. Remember Cameron got back in through coalition, his Tories being by then sufficiently moderate looking to allow the Lib Dems to countenance the idea. A wacko Tory party under someone like Braverman or Truss isn't going to be able to do anything beyond C&S with the DUP.
One interesting outcome for election 2028/9 is Labour as largest party but a minority, with an increased Lib Dem and SNP seat count (assuming the latter drops this time). That's the moment PR becomes a real prospect.
Maybe so, but nationalism is the raison d'etre of the SNP. "Rise up and be a nation again" and a' that.
We want to run our own affairs, not be stuck as a colony of a much larger neighbour who decides everything we do. What bit of that is hard for unionists to understand, just because you are fat and happy in England ruling the roost does not mean we can be kept prisoners forever.
A substantial minority of Scots want that Malcolm, the majority do not. The majority of us see that we get far more out of the United Kingdom than we put in and that being a part of such a significant country allows us to play a much greater role in world affairs than we otherwise would. Some of us go so far in our delusions as to be proud to be British!
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political atmosphere that has seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
Yes that's the danger: Tories go mad for a bit but Labour doesn't do enough to keep hold of power.
However, the route back is difficult given they are - and would be yet more - uncoalitionable. Remember Cameron got back in through coalition, his Tories being by then sufficiently moderate looking to allow the Lib Dems to countenance the idea. A wacko Tory party under someone like Braverman or Truss isn't going to be able to do anything beyond C&S with the DUP.
One interesting outcome for election 2028/9 is Labour as largest party but a minority, with an increased Lib Dem and SNP seat count (assuming the latter drops this time). That's the moment PR becomes a real prospect.
That’s an interesting scenario - but does require the LDs to buck the usual trend of doing less well when Labour is unpopular, since unhappy Tories often switch to the LDs but unhappy Labour voters are willing to vote Tory. Or, the other scenario I suppose is that the Tories in opposition continue to self-destruct such that they drive their remaining sensible supporters over to the LDs.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political atmosphere that has seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
Yes that's the danger: Tories go mad for a bit but Labour doesn't do enough to keep hold of power.
However, the route back is difficult given they are - and would be yet more - uncoalitionable. Remember Cameron got back in through coalition, his Tories being by then sufficiently moderate looking to allow the Lib Dems to countenance the idea. A wacko Tory party under someone like Braverman or Truss isn't going to be able to do anything beyond C&S with the DUP.
One interesting outcome for election 2028/9 is Labour as largest party but a minority, with an increased Lib Dem and SNP seat count (assuming the latter drops this time). That's the moment PR becomes a real prospect.
That’s an interesting scenario - but does require the LDs to buck the usual trend of doing less well when Labour is unpopular, since unhappy Tories often switch to the LDs but unhappy Labour voters are willing to vote Tory. Or, the other scenario I suppose is that the Tories in opposition continue to self-destruct such that they drive their remaining sensible supporters over to the LDs.
The closest precedent would be 2005, but with Labour not managing a majority. Continued tactical voting and not yet a Tory surge in their former Southern marginals.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Just more vapid bilge, I’m afraid
But it is interesting how bewildered and confounded you are, by this issue: dwindling into incoherence like the robot in Kubrick’s 2001
Yawn. But ok, you just want to bang on and not engage with other viewpoints. I guess I can't stop you.
At the moment, your comments are either uninteresting, inane or incomprehensible. It's not a good basis for debate, sorry
I'm hoping this is a phase, as you can, when you are on form, be a good sparring partner
Perhaps it is post-Tenerife blues? - if so, my sympathies
I certainly do have those. Brrrr. Not just the great weather there either. Also the bold primary colours and the longer days. It's like I lived in a Van Gogh painting for a week and have been brutally ejected.
Ah, my diagnostic skills are still up to snuff. I was right
Yes, that is the problem with winter holidays in the sun:
1. If they are short, you are all-too-quickly returned to the hideous British winter, which now feels even more hideous in comparison
2. You will now expect them, every winter, and it will like a terrible deprivation if you don't get one
However, I don;t understand, you have plenty of money, you are retired, your offspring are grown, you could sod off to Madeira or Lanzarote - or, indeed, Indcohina - for a month or two. Skip most of winter. Why not?
I'm just now stepping out in my shirtsleeves for a gin under the stars
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
See a Doctor , if Gove is the answer we are a bona fide Banana Rrepublic
Maybe so, but nationalism is the raison d'etre of the SNP. "Rise up and be a nation again" and a' that.
An interesting question would be how supportive the SNP would be of an English political movement with a similar 'self determination' programme one of whose central aims was separation from Scotland and the unification of Ireland.
Wouldn't support it or oppose it. The business of the English alone. And the Irish.
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political atmosphere that has seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
Yes that's the danger: Tories go mad for a bit but Labour doesn't do enough to keep hold of power.
However, the route back is difficult given they are - and would be yet more - uncoalitionable. Remember Cameron got back in through coalition, his Tories being by then sufficiently moderate looking to allow the Lib Dems to countenance the idea. A wacko Tory party under someone like Braverman or Truss isn't going to be able to do anything beyond C&S with the DUP.
One interesting outcome for election 2028/9 is Labour as largest party but a minority, with an increased Lib Dem and SNP seat count (assuming the latter drops this time). That's the moment PR becomes a real prospect.
The route to a majority for a more extreme Tory Party is through the 2019 result - holding onto the traditional shire seats while flipping small towns and red wall seats. Whether that coalition could hold to give them power, I’m not sure. We are lucky that a lot of the current flag bearers on the right (Braverman, Farage etc) have a lot of baggage. But if Labour have a bad 5 years I could see the red wall voters having their heads turned again - “we are different this time, we are not held back by the people/constraints that cost us last time”. The Trump strategy, essentially.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
How's food a failure?
Everyone in this country has widespread abundance of food, and people are spending a smaller percentage of wages than ever before on food. With a much wider range of both food and food sources too.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
There was a mug
Many mugs, in fact: anyone who believed New Labour was a mug.
Maybe so, but nationalism is the raison d'etre of the SNP. "Rise up and be a nation again" and a' that.
We want to run our own affairs, not be stuck as a colony of a much larger neighbour who decides everything we do. What bit of that is hard for unionists to understand, just because you are fat and happy in England ruling the roost does not mean we can be kept prisoners forever.
We are trying our very best to keep up but the deep fried mars bar is hard to compete with in the lardy stakes.
There was one done in Tempura batter sent into space recently , still in perfect order on its return. I have yet to ever know someone who has actually had one, seems to be a bit like the Loch Ness Monster.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
A couple of cancelled meetings owing to illness (not me but those holding the meeting) have given me a rare window of opportunity for other things.
The YouGov poll is poor for the LDs but downright horrible for the Conservatives. The swing from Conservative to Labour is 20% which would, if repeated and applied uniformly, push the Conservatives below 100 seats though they would still be the leading opposition parties.
A good poll for Reform but I suspect Reform strength mirrors Conservative strength in some areas so the only beneficiary of Conservative votes going to Reform will be Labour. The Clacton numbers last weekend showed slightly more Conservatives than going Labour but that was enough to make the 5th safest Conservative seat look like a marginal (and that was even before Farage).
It's almost certainly an outlier but Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be praying it is.
Maybe so, but nationalism is the raison d'etre of the SNP. "Rise up and be a nation again" and a' that.
We want to run our own affairs, not be stuck as a colony of a much larger neighbour who decides everything we do. What bit of that is hard for unionists to understand, just because you are fat and happy in England ruling the roost does not mean we can be kept prisoners forever.
A substantial minority of Scots want that Malcolm, the majority do not. The majority of us see that we get far more out of the United Kingdom than we put in and that being a part of such a significant country allows us to play a much greater role in world affairs than we otherwise would. Some of us go so far in our delusions as to be proud to be British!
Is that the minority Tories David, very bold assumption to make that a majority don't want it, all polls without a campaign are in 45-55% for independence and as we saw last time , when people see it possible it will rise for sure. Scotland plays no part and has no say in any facet of world affairs, we are told what our opinion is and can lump it. I personally will never be "British" whatever that means.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Just more vapid bilge, I’m afraid
But it is interesting how bewildered and confounded you are, by this issue: dwindling into incoherence like the robot in Kubrick’s 2001
Yawn. But ok, you just want to bang on and not engage with other viewpoints. I guess I can't stop you.
At the moment, your comments are either uninteresting, inane or incomprehensible. It's not a good basis for debate, sorry
I'm hoping this is a phase, as you can, when you are on form, be a good sparring partner
Perhaps it is post-Tenerife blues? - if so, my sympathies
I certainly do have those. Brrrr. Not just the great weather there either. Also the bold primary colours and the longer days. It's like I lived in a Van Gogh painting for a week and have been brutally ejected.
Ah, my diagnostic skills are still up to snuff. I was right
Yes, that is the problem with winter holidays in the sun:
1. If they are short, you are all-too-quickly returned to the hideous British winter, which now feels even more hideous in comparison
2. You will now expect them, every winter, and it will like a terrible deprivation if you don't get one
However, I don;t understand, you have plenty of money, you are retired, your offspring are grown, you could sod off to Madeira or Lanzarote - or, indeed, Indcohina - for a month or two. Skip most of winter. Why not?
I'm just now stepping out in my shirtsleeves for a gin under the stars
Yes to 1. Tenerife seems like a dream to me now It took me 4 hours to fly back to cold and raw
2 is fine since we plan to do that. Maybe 10 days next time. Same hotel.
Why not the whole winter? It would feel indulgent and a bit artificial. Family reasons also.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
And for decades too!
Despite voting for governments promising to be increasingly beastly to foreigners, migration goes up and up, to record levels under Sunak.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
They will be bankrupt in near future once they lose short money so will have to do something dramatic before then, clock is ticking.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
To get back on topic, I’d like it noted that my ferocious new consumption regimen - sporadic fasting, calorific deficit, restricted booze intake - is having an effect. I have lost almost 10kg in 6 weeks
No doubt experts will say that is too fast but wow it is fast. I can face myself in the mirror. I can see RIBS
I am about 5kg from my target weight. Then - god willing - I will have FINALLY lost all the Covid blob and be back to where I was from 2005-2020
I'm down 4kg since Christmas - no booze, 40 mins light cardio every day, desire to binge eat gone when I'm not drunk / hungover.
Watch me put it all back on next month...
Dude. Bro. Mate. Well done!!
Don’t stop now. It’s all worth it. I suggest we team up together and egg each other on. I am determined to hit my target weight by Feb 8th (when I’m flying again probably). That gives me 3 weeks to lose about 5kg. Do-able!!
Let’s be weight watcher buddies
Pb weight watchers is on!
For me it's entirely about skipping the wine in the evenings (600 calories)
From that, I have less desire to snack (another 400 calories) plus more energy in the week for light cardio.
Considered ozempic but I just had to drop the wine...
It’s a deal
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
Part of the problem is that no one is saying, in politics, "For each head of net immigration, we need to build a bedroom, x percent of a hospital bed (staffed), y percent of a school place, z percent of pubic transport, alpha percent of road investment etc etc."
If you have a growing population, then you need more stuff. Because everyone needs a share.
You have been known to make this point before and there's not a great deal wrong with it. Population size (which includes projected net immigration) should indeed be a factor in decisions on infrastructure and public services. Of course it should.
But from this it doesn't follow that our struggling NHS and our housing crisis and our generally creaking public realm is because of immigration. That's the far right spin. That's what I mean by a far right talking point. It's a pov which should be rejected not pandered to imo.
Wrong.
The planning process, policies and mind set of government are still set to an age of a gently increasing or static population.
If we *had* had no net immigration, then we wouldn't need to do more than renew existing infrastructure.
We are now 8 million homes behind. And it is getting worse.
The reason we need more houses and more of everything else is immigration. This isn't blaming anyone. People need somewhere to sleep. And everything else.
No, it's the far right spin that is wrong. There are many factors contributing to our various crises (NHS, housing, the CJS, transport etc). To pluck out and enshrine immigration as the culprit, to say it's all because we let too many immigrants in, this is simplistic and loaded.
We need more because there are more people. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
How's food a failure?
Everyone in this country has widespread abundance of food, and people are spending a smaller percentage of wages than ever before on food. With a much wider range of both food and food sources too.
That is one huge success story.
Despite the rhetoric about a banana monarchy its actually pretty hard to get a decent banana nowadays.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Not true. You weren't here in 1970. I was. The amount of ultra-processed food eaten now is vastly higher. To take one example: compare British school dinners then and now.
Not everyone, sure, but a bit of red pepper on top does not make a frozen pizza wholefood.
A couple of cancelled meetings owing to illness (not me but those holding the meeting) have given me a rare window of opportunity for other things.
The YouGov poll is poor for the LDs but downright horrible for the Conservatives. The swing from Conservative to Labour is 20% which would, if repeated and applied uniformly, push the Conservatives below 100 seats though they would still be the leading opposition parties.
A good poll for Reform but I suspect Reform strength mirrors Conservative strength in some areas so the only beneficiary of Conservative votes going to Reform will be Labour. The Clacton numbers last weekend showed slightly more Conservatives than going Labour but that was enough to make the 5th safest Conservative seat look like a marginal (and that was even before Farage).
It's almost certainly an outlier but Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be praying it is.
My fear for the LDs is that with their low poll rating and Labour roaring away in the polls that rather than tactical voting in the blue wall seats where the LDs are the challengers it will simply lead to a lot of high, but second place Labour results, with maybe the odd surprise of them winning from third. That will result in a good win for Labour, Tories doing better in the blue wall than expected and the LDs only winning a handful of their more obvious targets.
To get back on topic, I’d like it noted that my ferocious new consumption regimen - sporadic fasting, calorific deficit, restricted booze intake - is having an effect. I have lost almost 10kg in 6 weeks
No doubt experts will say that is too fast but wow it is fast. I can face myself in the mirror. I can see RIBS
I am about 5kg from my target weight. Then - god willing - I will have FINALLY lost all the Covid blob and be back to where I was from 2005-2020
I'm down 4kg since Christmas - no booze, 40 mins light cardio every day, desire to binge eat gone when I'm not drunk / hungover.
Watch me put it all back on next month...
Dude. Bro. Mate. Well done!!
Don’t stop now. It’s all worth it. I suggest we team up together and egg each other on. I am determined to hit my target weight by Feb 8th (when I’m flying again probably). That gives me 3 weeks to lose about 5kg. Do-able!!
Let’s be weight watcher buddies
Pb weight watchers is on!
For me it's entirely about skipping the wine in the evenings (600 calories)
From that, I have less desire to snack (another 400 calories) plus more energy in the week for light cardio.
Considered ozempic but I just had to drop the wine...
It’s a deal
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
What’s your aim?
You're 4kg lighter than me. I'm 6'2" and fairly fit. Are you sure you really need to lose weight?
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
Part of the problem is that no one is saying, in politics, "For each head of net immigration, we need to build a bedroom, x percent of a hospital bed (staffed), y percent of a school place, z percent of pubic transport, alpha percent of road investment etc etc."
If you have a growing population, then you need more stuff. Because everyone needs a share.
You have been known to make this point before and there's not a great deal wrong with it. Population size (which includes projected net immigration) should indeed be a factor in decisions on infrastructure and public services. Of course it should.
But from this it doesn't follow that our struggling NHS and our housing crisis and our generally creaking public realm is because of immigration. That's the far right spin. That's what I mean by a far right talking point. It's a pov which should be rejected not pandered to imo.
Wrong.
The planning process, policies and mind set of government are still set to an age of a gently increasing or static population.
If we *had* had no net immigration, then we wouldn't need to do more than renew existing infrastructure.
We are now 8 million homes behind. And it is getting worse.
The reason we need more houses and more of everything else is immigration. This isn't blaming anyone. People need somewhere to sleep. And everything else.
No, it's the far right spin that is wrong. There are many factors contributing to our various crises (NHS, housing, the CJS, transport etc). To pluck out and enshrine immigration as the culprit, to say it's all because we let too many immigrants in, this is simplistic and loaded.
Is it possible that the level of immigration was indeed too high, mixed in with the other factors of course?
Well that's an easy one. Yes. Strip out simplistic and emotive populist right nonsense and I'm well up for talking about immigration.
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political movements that have seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
if the Great British Voter decides she wants a hard right government, that will reintroduce the noose and turn back the boats with water cannon, then that is her right. How is this a “risk”? It is democracy
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Not so. Avocados were so widespread in the 1970s that people used them to decorate their bathrooms.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Not so. Avocados were so widespread in the 1970s that people used them to decorate their bathrooms.
God that is an awful colour isn't it.
Joking apart, from a decidedly middle class background I hadn't even heard of an avo until I went to Uni in the mid 00s.
They simply didn't exist in the popular Dorset consciousness then...
To get back on topic, I’d like it noted that my ferocious new consumption regimen - sporadic fasting, calorific deficit, restricted booze intake - is having an effect. I have lost almost 10kg in 6 weeks
No doubt experts will say that is too fast but wow it is fast. I can face myself in the mirror. I can see RIBS
I am about 5kg from my target weight. Then - god willing - I will have FINALLY lost all the Covid blob and be back to where I was from 2005-2020
I'm down 4kg since Christmas - no booze, 40 mins light cardio every day, desire to binge eat gone when I'm not drunk / hungover.
Watch me put it all back on next month...
Dude. Bro. Mate. Well done!!
Don’t stop now. It’s all worth it. I suggest we team up together and egg each other on. I am determined to hit my target weight by Feb 8th (when I’m flying again probably). That gives me 3 weeks to lose about 5kg. Do-able!!
Let’s be weight watcher buddies
Pb weight watchers is on!
For me it's entirely about skipping the wine in the evenings (600 calories)
From that, I have less desire to snack (another 400 calories) plus more energy in the week for light cardio.
Considered ozempic but I just had to drop the wine...
It’s a deal
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
What’s your aim?
You're 4kg lighter than me. I'm 6'2" and fairly fit. Are you sure you really need to lose weight?
Yes, unfortunately
I’m just under 6 foot (yes yes, all men say that, but it is the case)
The BMI says I should be 80kg or under, however in my experience that is too light for me. I have a rugby forward’s physique. Barrel chested. Solid. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
So I start to look quite weird and pathetic if I go much under 80kg, I bottomed out at 74kg in about 2015 and I didn’t look better, in photos I look a tad scrawny
80-82kg is my ideal spot, I think. I also don’t want to get Ozempic Face when you lose so much weight, so fast, your entire face collapses
BTW did anyone find out if that’s what happened to Boris? His weight loss was shockingly fast, and definitely aged him
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
Under 50s, mind. Not under 30s or 18-25s. Not only are the Conservatives at a level that requires heroic changing of minds as these generations age, but RefCon combined is only 15% showing that appealing to RefUKers is unlikely to win them back anyone other than their pensioner vote.
Always funny how Lib Dem support is essentially the same at all ages.
And for 65+ it's like a different planet.
Con 36% Lab 29% Reform 20% Lib Dem 8% Green 5%
If the voting age was raised to 65, EC would have a Tory majority of 80. It might be Sunak's only chance.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
Ireland is an increasingly despicable country. Parasitic bunch of whining, spineless, tax-dodging, anti-Semitic fucks, and they can’t even claim they are so much less racist than the awful Brits any more, as the locals burn down all the hotels meant for asylum seekers
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
There is no way to stop the boats without literally killing people (or actually allowing people to legally apply for asylum, but lol, the government won't do that). When you make legal routes impossible, the only option is illegal routes.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
He could have done by adapting the approach we came up with of massive fines for employing illegal workers - because until you do that the pull factor of disappearing into paid work here remains
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Not so. Avocados were so widespread in the 1970s that people used them to decorate their bathrooms.
God that is an awful colour isn't it.
Joking apart, from a decidedly middle class background I hadn't even heard of an avo until I went to Uni in the mid 00s.
They simply didn't exist in the popular Dorset consciousness then...
I remember learning about Avocado's Constant in school chemistry lessons.
Maybe so, but nationalism is the raison d'etre of the SNP. "Rise up and be a nation again" and a' that.
We want to run our own affairs, not be stuck as a colony of a much larger neighbour who decides everything we do. What bit of that is hard for unionists to understand, just because you are fat and happy in England ruling the roost does not mean we can be kept prisoners forever.
We are trying our very best to keep up but the deep fried mars bar is hard to compete with in the lardy stakes.
There was one done in Tempura batter sent into space recently , still in perfect order on its return. I have yet to ever know someone who has actually had one, seems to be a bit like the Loch Ness Monster.
To get back on topic, I’d like it noted that my ferocious new consumption regimen - sporadic fasting, calorific deficit, restricted booze intake - is having an effect. I have lost almost 10kg in 6 weeks
No doubt experts will say that is too fast but wow it is fast. I can face myself in the mirror. I can see RIBS
I am about 5kg from my target weight. Then - god willing - I will have FINALLY lost all the Covid blob and be back to where I was from 2005-2020
I'm down 4kg since Christmas - no booze, 40 mins light cardio every day, desire to binge eat gone when I'm not drunk / hungover.
Watch me put it all back on next month...
Dude. Bro. Mate. Well done!!
Don’t stop now. It’s all worth it. I suggest we team up together and egg each other on. I am determined to hit my target weight by Feb 8th (when I’m flying again probably). That gives me 3 weeks to lose about 5kg. Do-able!!
Let’s be weight watcher buddies
Pb weight watchers is on!
For me it's entirely about skipping the wine in the evenings (600 calories)
From that, I have less desire to snack (another 400 calories) plus more energy in the week for light cardio.
Considered ozempic but I just had to drop the wine...
It’s a deal
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
What’s your aim?
You're 4kg lighter than me. I'm 6'2" and fairly fit. Are you sure you really need to lose weight?
Yes, unfortunately
I’m just under 6 foot (yes yes, all men say that, but it is the case)
The BMI says I should be 80kg or under, however in my experience that is too light for me. I have a rugby forward’s physique. Barrel chested. Solid. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
So I start to look quite weird and pathetic if I go much under 80kg, I bottomed out at 74kg in about 2015 and I didn’t look better, in photos I look a tad scrawny
80-82kg is my ideal spot, I think. I also don’t want to get Ozempic Face when you lose so much weight, so fast, your entire face collapses
BTW did anyone find out if that’s what happened to Boris? His weight loss was shockingly fast, and definitely aged him
My biggest issue is that I've got no legs. well, I do, obvs, but they're short for my body size. An ex-gf who was the best part of a foot shorter than me had the same-length legs.
That makes me sound rather odd, doesn't it? But it also means that my torso is rather long, and therefore heavier than usual.
But I'd also mention mental happiness: IMV its better to be four or five kilos off your 'ideal' weight and happy, rather than at your ideal weight and constantly stressing about it, or going on faddy diets.
TBH, some of the most content people I know are overweight.
Ireland is an increasingly despicable country. Parasitic bunch of whining, spineless, tax-dodging, anti-Semitic fucks, and they can’t even claim they are so much less racist than the awful Brits any more, as the locals burn down all the hotels meant for asylum seekers
"Under the terms of the 1972 agreement with China, HMG acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan. We do not deal with the Taiwan authorities on a government to government basis, and we avoid any act which could be taken to imply recognition."
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political movements that have seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
if the Great British Voter decides she wants a hard right government, that will reintroduce the noose and turn back the boats with water cannon, then that is her right. How is this a “risk”? It is democracy
Because under our system a party with 35% of the vote can get a majority of seats, and that isn't the will of "the Great British Voter". Rishi coming out today to argue he, as an unelected PM trying to pass policy not in his manifesto that does not have the support of the majority of the electorate, is trying to pass the "will of the people" is a sign of this. Part of the push far-right is tightening the definition of who "the people" are, let alone what their "will" is. For the volk, ja?
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
He could have done by adapting the approach we came up with of massive fines for employing illegal workers - because until you do that the pull factor of disappearing into paid work here remains
Hey, that's my idea. Including selling it to the Labour faithful by extending it to paying less than minimum wage, deliberately.
The fun bit is when you present the idea to people.
So far, I've been told this would collapse some industries. I reckon this could be true. At least massive disruption.
And the other issue is that suddenly a large number of people would have no means of support - not eligible for benefits and no income.
Ireland is an increasingly despicable country. Parasitic bunch of whining, spineless, tax-dodging, anti-Semitic fucks, and they can’t even claim they are so much less racist than the awful Brits any more, as the locals burn down all the hotels meant for asylum seekers
"Under the te rms of the 1972 agreement with China, HMG acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan. We do not deal with the Taiwan authorities on a government to government basis, and we avoid any act which could be taken to imply recognition."
We pay for Irish air defence, via the RAF. They spend zero on their military then they crow about their ethically superior neutrality, which is protected and funded by us Brits. That is the Brits who they then affect to morally despise
Maybe so, but nationalism is the raison d'etre of the SNP. "Rise up and be a nation again" and a' that.
We want to run our own affairs, not be stuck as a colony of a much larger neighbour who decides everything we do. What bit of that is hard for unionists to understand, just because you are fat and happy in England ruling the roost does not mean we can be kept prisoners forever.
A substantial minority of Scots want that Malcolm, the majority do not. The majority of us see that we get far more out of the United Kingdom than we put in and that being a part of such a significant country allows us to play a much greater role in world affairs than we otherwise would. Some of us go so far in our delusions as to be proud to be British!
Best not to check what is the actual majority view tho’, just to be on the safe side.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
He could have done by adapting the approach we came up with of massive fines for employing illegal workers - because until you do that the pull factor of disappearing into paid work here remains
Hey, that's my idea. Including selling it to the Labour faithful by extending it to paying less than minimum wage, deliberately.
The fun bit is when you present the idea to people.
So far, I've been told this would collapse some industries. I reckon this could be true. At least massive disruption.
And the other issue is that suddenly a large number of people would have no means of support - not eligible for benefits and no income.
If fines for hiring illegal immigrants would collapse some industries, maybe we should have better worker protections and better pathways to legal status? Maybe if labour weren't so weak in this country (the general rights of workers and their unions, not the Labour party) then protections against such abuses wouldn't happen. If an industry cannot survive without (essentially) forced labour, then the industry shouldn't exist.
Ireland is an increasingly despicable country. Parasitic bunch of whining, spineless, tax-dodging, anti-Semitic fucks, and they can’t even claim they are so much less racist than the awful Brits any more, as the locals burn down all the hotels meant for asylum seekers
"Under the te rms of the 1972 agreement with China, HMG acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan. We do not deal with the Taiwan authorities on a government to government basis, and we avoid any act which could be taken to imply recognition."
We pay for Irish air defence, via the RAF. They spend zero on their military then they crow about their ethically superior neutrality, which is protected and funded by us Brits. That is the Brits who they then affect to morally despise
Feck the Oirish
Their position on Taiwan and China is identical to ours. We both recognise China and view Taiwan as a province of China.
Ireland is an increasingly despicable country. Parasitic bunch of whining, spineless, tax-dodging, anti-Semitic fucks, and they can’t even claim they are so much less racist than the awful Brits any more, as the locals burn down all the hotels meant for asylum seekers
"Under the terms of the 1972 agreement with China, HMG acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan. We do not deal with the Taiwan authorities on a government to government basis, and we avoid any act which could be taken to imply recognition."
To get back on topic, I’d like it noted that my ferocious new consumption regimen - sporadic fasting, calorific deficit, restricted booze intake - is having an effect. I have lost almost 10kg in 6 weeks
No doubt experts will say that is too fast but wow it is fast. I can face myself in the mirror. I can see RIBS
I am about 5kg from my target weight. Then - god willing - I will have FINALLY lost all the Covid blob and be back to where I was from 2005-2020
I'm down 4kg since Christmas - no booze, 40 mins light cardio every day, desire to binge eat gone when I'm not drunk / hungover.
Watch me put it all back on next month...
Dude. Bro. Mate. Well done!!
Don’t stop now. It’s all worth it. I suggest we team up together and egg each other on. I am determined to hit my target weight by Feb 8th (when I’m flying again probably). That gives me 3 weeks to lose about 5kg. Do-able!!
Let’s be weight watcher buddies
Pb weight watchers is on!
For me it's entirely about skipping the wine in the evenings (600 calories)
From that, I have less desire to snack (another 400 calories) plus more energy in the week for light cardio.
Considered ozempic but I just had to drop the wine...
It’s a deal
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
What’s your aim?
You're 4kg lighter than me. I'm 6'2" and fairly fit. Are you sure you really need to lose weight?
Yes, unfortunately
I’m just under 6 foot (yes yes, all men say that, but it is the case)
The BMI says I should be 80kg or under, however in my experience that is too light for me. I have a rugby forward’s physique. Barrel chested. Solid. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
So I start to look quite weird and pathetic if I go much under 80kg, I bottomed out at 74kg in about 2015 and I didn’t look better, in photos I look a tad scrawny
80-82kg is my ideal spot, I think. I also don’t want to get Ozempic Face when you lose so much weight, so fast, your entire face collapses
BTW did anyone find out if that’s what happened to Boris? His weight loss was shockingly fast, and definitely aged him
My biggest issue is that I've got no legs. well, I do, obvs, but they're short for my body size. An ex-gf who was the best part of a foot shorter than me had the same-length legs.
That makes me sound rather odd, doesn't it? But it also means that my torso is rather long, and therefore heavier than usual.
But I'd also mention mental happiness: IMV its better to be four or five kilos off your 'ideal' weight and happy, rather than at your ideal weight and constantly stressing about it, or going on faddy diets.
TBH, some of the most content people I know are overweight.
I am similar
My ex wife noted that I have “very shapely lady legs” (sorry for too much info, I’m on my 2nd G&T and these days I’m a lightweight) but she also noted that these legs simply don’t fit the rest of me, which is stocky and rugby forward-esque. I’m like one of those cars which is actually two smashed up cars blowtorched together
On the other hand I can now see hints of cheekbones in my face for the first time in maybe three years so I am sticking with the diet regime, for now. AND I HAVE LOST THE MOOBS
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Ireland is an increasingly despicable country. Parasitic bunch of whining, spineless, tax-dodging, anti-Semitic fucks, and they can’t even claim they are so much less racist than the awful Brits any more, as the locals burn down all the hotels meant for asylum seekers
"Under the te rms of the 1972 agreement with China, HMG acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan. We do not deal with the Taiwan authorities on a government to government basis, and we avoid any act which could be taken to imply recognition."
We pay for Irish air defence, via the RAF. They spend zero on their military then they crow about their ethically superior neutrality, which is protected and funded by us Brits. That is the Brits who they then affect to morally despise
Feck the Oirish
Their position on Taiwan and China is identical to ours. We both recognise China and view Taiwan as a province of China.
Except Sunak is not marching around Davos saying “Yeah Taiwan is Chinese”, is he?
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
Ireland is an increasingly despicable country. Parasitic bunch of whining, spineless, tax-dodging, anti-Semitic fucks, and they can’t even claim they are so much less racist than the awful Brits any more, as the locals burn down all the hotels meant for asylum seekers
"Under the te rms of the 1972 agreement with China, HMG acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan. We do not deal with the Taiwan authorities on a government to government basis, and we avoid any act which could be taken to imply recognition."
We pay for Irish air defence, via the RAF. They spend zero on their military then they crow about their ethically superior neutrality, which is protected and funded by us Brits. That is the Brits who they then affect to morally despise
Feck the Oirish
Their position on Taiwan and China is identical to ours. We both recognise China and view Taiwan as a province of China.
Except Sunak is not marching around Davos saying “Yeah Taiwan is Chinese”, is he?
Varadkar is a fucking snake. UGH
I'm not sure you can accuse someone of being a snake for openly reiterating their country's long-standing policy, one that is widely shared by most other countries, including ours.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
I thoroughly recommend, for a fresh perspective on nationhood, Michael Wood’s HISTORY OF CHINA - especially as an audiobook: because he’s an experienced TV presenter he really knows how to rizz up his presentation. Sometimes he goes over the top, with the pronunciation, nonetheless it is lively in speech and fascinating in detail
My God China is so old! Theoretically it can trace its origins as a coherent polity to 2000BC, certainly 1000BC. Incredible. And in pre Christian times it had empires able to build 5000km of road and station 300,000 men on a frontier, and it is still here now, in largely the same place with the same boundaries
It is like the Roman Empire was born just after Stonehenge was built, compromising most of Europe, and it stayed the Roman Empire until now, with an ethnically homogeneous population
No wonder they think they are THE Middle Kingdom. The pivot and fulcrum of the world
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
He could have done by adapting the approach we came up with of massive fines for employing illegal workers - because until you do that the pull factor of disappearing into paid work here remains
Is that particularly a problem? I thought most people coming over on small boats were then claiming asylum. The numbers coming over and disappearing into the black economy are estimated to be pretty small.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
I had an ex girlfriend whose Dad - working class rural English - was a total foodie. He was so authentic rustic poor he would go out and poach deer and hare and rabbits and cook them up. He was also a fantastic amateur chef
He once made me and her a dinner of stuffed hearts (I forget what hearts, looking back must have been calf or sheep?) - my God they were delicious. Exactly as you describe. Melt in the mouth and entirely unexpected
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Golly. Were Fava Beans and Chianti involved?
I'm afraid we weren't advanced on the wine front. Blue Nun and only with Sunday Roast in those days.
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political movements that have seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
if the Great British Voter decides she wants a hard right government, that will reintroduce the noose and turn back the boats with water cannon, then that is her right. How is this a “risk”? It is democracy
The risk is not that this is a positive choice by voters. If the majority of the public do indeed choose this from a range of realistic alternatives, fine.
The risk is that Labour underperforms, lots of people get enraged and lodge a protest vote, but the timing of the Conservatives’ bonkers phase means the only alternative to a hapless Labour Party are swivel-eyed loons.
I’d argue this is what’s happening in USA. It doesn’t lead to good politics, or policy.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
Mr. Leon, China's very old. The major ethnicity, Han, is derived from the circa 200 BC to 200 AD dynasty (which ends at the start of the Three Kingdoms classic).
It's debatable how consistent its hsitory can be considered to be, though my knowledge of the older stuff is minimal. Qin, the dynasty pre-Han and who provided the 'first' emperor of Qin Shi Huangdi (the king in Hero, which is a great film but perhaps not neutral on the emperor), was originally one of multiple competing kingdoms. That's a good example of the saying "The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide."
Parts now within the modern borders of China (the land of the Uighers[sp] spring to mind) were not historically within its borders. That said, the north-east was snipped off by Russia and deprived China of part of its coastline so it does swing both ways. /endramble
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political movements that have seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
if the Great British Voter decides she wants a hard right government, that will reintroduce the noose and turn back the boats with water cannon, then that is her right. How is this a “risk”? It is democracy
It’s a risk as far as I’m concerned, because I do not want a ‘hard right’ government, and I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be treated to a great period of government if we got one.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
Mr. Leon, China's very old. The major ethnicity, Han, is derived from the circa 200 BC to 200 AD dynasty (which ends at the start of the Three Kingdoms classic).
It's debatable how consistent its hsitory can be considered to be, though my knowledge of the older stuff is minimal. Qin, the dynasty pre-Han and who provided the 'first' emperor of Qin Shi Huangdi (the king in Hero, which is a great film but perhaps not neutral on the emperor), was originally one of multiple competing kingdoms. That's a good example of the saying "The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide."
Parts now within the modern borders of China (the land of the Uighers[sp] spring to mind) were not historically within its borders. That said, the north-east was snipped off by Russia and deprived China of part of its coastline so it does swing both ways. /endramble
According to Mr Wood, you can reliably trace “China” as a concept back to about 1000BC
And traits we see, today, as classically Chinese - the nationwide bureaucracy, the obsession with education and hierarchy, the surprisingly and paradoxically meritocratic civil service, the idea of duty to nation/empire - can also be dated to the period 1000BC onwards. For example, Confucius - still a deep, living influence on Chinese thought - was born in 550 BC - a century before Plato
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political movements that have seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
if the Great British Voter decides she wants a hard right government, that will reintroduce the noose and turn back the boats with water cannon, then that is her right. How is this a “risk”? It is democracy
The risk is not that this is a positive choice by voters. If the majority of the public do indeed choose this from a range of realistic alternatives, fine.
The risk is that Labour underperforms, lots of people get enraged and lodge a protest vote, but the timing of the Conservatives’ bonkers phase means the only alternative to a hapless Labour Party are swivel-eyed loons.
I’d argue this is what’s happening in USA. It doesn’t lead to good politics, or policy.
There's thing I've seen, time and time again, with failing startups.
There is this one feature that's missing from the product, and once it is delivered, people will flock to it, and the business will be saved. It's some kind of technical Hail Mary, and the entire management team is bought into the cult of the One Killer Feature.
And what happens is that the killer feature is added, and maybe the needle moves a little bit, but the business is not saved.
Successful businesses iterate. They take what they have, and every day they make it a little bit better.
The current government is a failing startup. And Rwanda is their Hail Mary.
Instead of governing well, and improving everything a little every day, they have invested all their metaphorical eggs in a policy to send a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda so they can claim asylum there.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political movements that have seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
if the Great British Voter decides she wants a hard right government, that will reintroduce the noose and turn back the boats with water cannon, then that is her right. How is this a “risk”? It is democracy
The risk is not that this is a positive choice by voters. If the majority of the public do indeed choose this from a range of realistic alternatives, fine.
The risk is that Labour underperforms, lots of people get enraged and lodge a protest vote, but the timing of the Conservatives’ bonkers phase means the only alternative to a hapless Labour Party are swivel-eyed loons.
I’d argue this is what’s happening in USA. It doesn’t lead to good politics, or policy.
We can only pray
Uh oh, turns out this variant of vapid bilge is highly contagious. LOCK DOWN NOW!
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
How's food a failure?
Everyone in this country has widespread abundance of food, and people are spending a smaller percentage of wages than ever before on food. With a much wider range of both food and food sources too.
That is one huge success story.
An abundance of cheap processed shit, making the population fat, ill and unhappy. Oncoming governments are going to have to face that, sooner rather than later.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
I believe that’s one of the main POINTS of AUKUS. Divvying up the world. If Britain pulls her weight she can be a major stabiliser in the Atlantic/Med (and we should do this, fuck the old people, let’s divert pensions to Defence)
This frees up the USA and Oz to concentrate on China, and keep the slopes in order, as you should do in a chaotic multinational ski resort
There is another aspect which is where Five Eyes meets AI (this is explicitly mentioned in the AUKUS treaty). UK plus Oz plus, of course, USA on AI is quite a combo. This could be absolutely crucial. If the Anglosphere can gain a critical and pivotal advantage in AI that could corner China for decades, and also really piss off the French
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
He could have done by adapting the approach we came up with of massive fines for employing illegal workers - because until you do that the pull factor of disappearing into paid work here remains
Hey, that's my idea. Including selling it to the Labour faithful by extending it to paying less than minimum wage, deliberately.
The fun bit is when you present the idea to people.
So far, I've been told this would collapse some industries. I reckon this could be true. At least massive disruption.
And the other issue is that suddenly a large number of people would have no means of support - not eligible for benefits and no income.
Sorry I couldn’t remember if it was your idea or rcs1000’s but I know collectively we refined it over the years.
As for those attack points - the response should be - AND? If you can’t make money legally you shouldn’t be doing it.
And if you have no support - report yourself as an illegal immigrant and we’ll happily pay for the flight home.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
AUKUS was just a glorified arms sale. Boris spun it as some kind of military alliance because he needed to brighten up his MPs' afternoon when things were looking a bit glum post-Brexit.
Sunak's problem is he has been unable to formulate a political strategy and execute on it consistently:
- Is he a safe pair of hands getting the economy under control and investing for the future? Binning long-term infrastructure projects to help finance pre-election tax cuts (despite a big deficit) doesn't suggest so.
- Are we voting for a change or continuity candidate from recent Tory governments? If the latter the 'change' offered feels very familiar.
- Is he on the populist right or not? The Rwanda policy suggests yes, as does defining himself to be tall by law (or was that Rwanda is a safe country?). But will he be willing to go far enough to force this through the Lords and the Supreme Court such that anyone actually goes to Rwanda before the next election? I expect not, and his failure (on his own terms) here has led to Reform growing in the polls.
It's like the reverse Boris 2019 plan. He was able to hold onto the blue wall while appealing beyond the Tory natural base. Sunak is on track to alienate the blue wall while failing to convince the types of voters Boris won over.
Whatever change it was that we wanted, it isn’t the one we are getting.
Competence would have been nice, for a change.
I was hoping for genuine economic competence. Not just better than Truss, that was a given, but long term planning and a proper focus on our main issues (balance of trade, investment, productivity, education).
I think Hunt has done pretty well as Chancellor, within the boundaries set by his boss. It is Sunak who has really disappointed. The guy is genuinely bright, has a very successful career in financial services behind him and he really just doesn't seem to get it. The HS2 decision was a terrible decision for large swathes of the country. The logistics of getting around this relatively small country of ours, both for individuals and goods, are truly terrible and an inhibition of growth.
Hunt did some good work on encouraging investment in the budget but he could and should have gone further, even at the cost of the NI cuts. No one is talking about the balance of payments. It is critical to our future standard of living and it is simply not being addressed. We need to encourage more training. There is so much to do to get this country back on the road that someone with a reasonable grounding in economics and finance should have appreciated. I'm disappointed.
And as for this Rwanda nonsense....
Balance of payments is a funny one, isn't it?
When I was young, there were whole hour-long programmes about it, with a twenty-minute explainer documentary followed by a long-form interview with Brian Walden pressing some top politician as to what they were going to do about the balance of payments.
Nowadays it isn't even reported, or at least not anywhere prominently, and doesn't feature in political discourse at all.
Yes, I remember when the monthly figures were headline news. But we are getting poorer at a rate of in excess of £90bn a year and have been for a very long time now. Cumulatively, this is why our standard of living is falling behind so much of western Europe. And its getting worse every year.
I disagree with you about a lot recently it seems, but YES to this. It's ludicrous that we have whole departments to report and provide economical forecasts, yet there's zero attention to whether we're earning or (at present) hemorrhaging money. It'll be a bold PM who makes this a central pillar of their economic policy - I certainly don't see any focus on it from SKS with his intention to shut down the domestic oil industry in favour of imports from Saudi Arabia and the US.
There's thing I've seen, time and time again, with failing startups.
There is this one feature that's missing from the product, and once it is delivered, people will flock to it, and the business will be saved. It's some kind of technical Hail Mary, and the entire management team is bought into the cult of the One Killer Feature.
And what happens is that the killer feature is added, and maybe the needle moves a little bit, but the business is not saved.
Successful businesses iterate. They take what they have, and every day they make it a little bit better.
The current government is a failing startup. And Rwanda is their Hail Mary.
Instead of governing well, and improving everything a little every day, they have invested all their metaphorical eggs in a policy to send a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda so they can claim asylum there.
That's exactly it.
The pitch is that if one asylum seeker sets foot on Rwandan soil before election day, Rishi Sunak's premiership will have been vindicated.
What those poll rating show is that even if a narrow plurality are in favour of trying to ship off asylum seekers to Rwanda, most people don't think it would be either effective or good value for money. Making it a flagship policy is just crazy.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Trying to think back to when and how I moved from the childhood cuisine I've described to being also a foodie, liking to cook everything from scratch with fresh ingredients and experiment.
Partly it was uni, at undergraduate level - I was in quite a diverse group in halls and learned some Indian and north African meals from basic ingredients through friends. But I wasn't all that adventurous post-uni. I think the real transformation was as a postgrad a few years later where I lived near a large Co-Op serving a quite deprived mostly WWC area, but clearly there was either a national/regional policy on what was stocked or the manager was a foodie and not very in tune with customers. I, also skint, would go in after a day at the uni and trawl the reduced aisle, which tended to include nice cuts of beef, lots of seafood, exotic vegetables and fruit, fresh tuna steaks* etc. I'd hoover these up, take them home and google how to cook them with some other basic ingredients, such as spices that I began to accumulate. After a year or two I was eating better than I ever had for less than I'd ever spent.
*first time I bought these the lady on the checkout peered at it suspiciously and wanted to take it off me as it was a funny colour, being the deep red/brown of fresh tuna, rather than cooked tuna-in-a-tin colour
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
Which is why we should be all in favour of smashing the Russian armed forces to bits in Ukraine. Let them need a decade or more to rebuild an army, and in the meantime we can concentrate on China. The US is already going that way, which means that Europe needs to step up to defend itself.
Looking at the detail of the YouGov poll it looks likely that if HMG could stop the small boats, then that would be the single greatest thing that would help to win back the 2019GE voters that they have lost.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
He could have done by adapting the approach we came up with of massive fines for employing illegal workers - because until you do that the pull factor of disappearing into paid work here remains
Hey, that's my idea. Including selling it to the Labour faithful by extending it to paying less than minimum wage, deliberately.
The fun bit is when you present the idea to people.
So far, I've been told this would collapse some industries. I reckon this could be true. At least massive disruption.
And the other issue is that suddenly a large number of people would have no means of support - not eligible for benefits and no income.
If fines for hiring illegal immigrants would collapse some industries, maybe we should have better worker protections and better pathways to legal status? Maybe if labour weren't so weak in this country (the general rights of workers and their unions, not the Labour party) then protections against such abuses wouldn't happen. If an industry cannot survive without (essentially) forced labour, then the industry shouldn't exist.
Are you new here? The unspoken "deal" is that the.... originals get the nice jobs and the coolies dig the ditches. Or was that the British Empire?
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
AUKUS was just a glorified arms sale. Boris spun it as some kind of military alliance because he needed to brighten up his MPs' afternoon when things were looking a bit glum post-Brexit.
No, that’s entirely wrong (and unsurprisingly so, from you, are you now so old you are demented? That is a sincere question and not meant unkindly)
AUKUS is a deeply serious new venture. It is the USA going beyond NATO and imagining a post NATO world when Russia is no longer a threat - or, when Russia is only a threat to Western Europe which, quite frankly, is easily rich enough to defend itself (Trump is merely willing to say out loud what a lot of Americans think in silence). AUKUS is obviously aimed at China (and maybe even India, eventually)
The eventual concept must be AUKUS plus NZ and Canada, the Five Eyes, all English speaking, with English Common Law, and with four of them actually with the same head of state - the British monarch. That is a potent global alliance which has a very good chance of running the world for another century, whatever China does
Tories on 20%. Fukkers on 12% pre Farage. Sunak to give triumphant presser about how thanks to his canny skills in the Commons he will now Stop The Boats.
Tories. The abyss becons.
2024 is lining up to be the most spectacular general election since 1945. It's entirely plausible that Labour could end up with a 200+ majority. The Tories could end sub-100. Neither is anything like guaranteed but we ought to consider it a realistic possibility.
Sunak has got himself into a position where he isn't trusted as either a populist or a managerial type; he's chasing the RefUK vote but not getting it because he's merely highlighting their arguments without sorting them; driving right will consolidate the anti-Tory tactical vote on the left (which is in any case twice the size of the combined Con+RefUK vote); and meanwhile, the economic squeeze is still on for a lot of people, strikes are rife and the NHS cannot cope with demand, backlog and strikes.
But the problem for the Tories isn't Sunak (or not just him). The problem is their party and its record. Changing leaders yet again (for who?) isn't going to solve that and may make it even worse.
Sunak is a huge part of the problem. He's been Chancellor or PM for all but a relative handful of days in nearly four years.
And its not just that the buck stops with him, its what he's chosen to do and his priorities.
Hunt is far, far better. Despite Sunak, not because of him.
Hunt is basically the same - and as a long-serving Health Sec would be blamed personally for many of the current NHS problems (not without some justification). I don't see much more of a spark of the front-man to him than there is to Sunak. Anyway, Hunt finished last with only 18 votes out of 357 in the summer 2022 leadership election; he has little personal support and I don't see the MPs dumping Sunak to replace him with what they hope might be a slightly better version of the same, in order to lose less badly.
Question for non-Tories and former Tory voters who have fallen out of love with the party. Who of the current crop of MPs with leadership ambitions would you want to see as future leader? Not in terms of who's most beatable, but who would be most tolerable as a future PM?
I know who TSE would go for (though he's in the Lords), but others? I struggle with this. Would probably opt for whoever looks most presentable on the global stage. Until a few weeks ago I thought that was Cleverly (LOL).
As a former Tory, this is a conversation I have had of late with friends still in the party and we have agreed there is no one. Looking at the Cabinet, I would argue Mel Stride is the least weak.
The trouble is that, in 2019, the Tory party was shorn of its best talent. If we still had names such as Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee, Guto Bebb, Rory Stewart and Oliver Letwin in the frame (with 5 years more experience under their belts) it might be a wholly different picture.
The fact that several of these names have since either properly joined, or talked about working with, Lib Dems and Labour, I'd suggest they wouldn't be very strong Tory PMs....
My theory is the post election leadership candidates will be:
Steve Barclay Suella Liz Truss Tom T Gove Dowden
I think Jenrick, Stride and Hancock are are in danger of losing their seats, but if not, then add them in the mix.
I foresee Barclay, Tom T, Gove and Suella emerging from that.
Frankly I think any of these would be far better than Sunak.
Badenoch and Mordaunt (if the latter keeps her seat) have to be in that mix, surely?
If the final 4 is as per your list, then god help us, because that strikes me as a certainty that Suella will be LOTO.
Could well be, but Mordaunt very unlikely to keep her seat and I think Badenoch might actually wait this one out. Especially if Gove runs....
Things I never thought I'd say, but Gove might actually be the sensible choice. If the Conservatives can jump straight to the Michael Howard stage of grief, there's a chance of Gove creating space for an actually electable leader to emerge.
But my impression is that a lot of Conservatives are rather looking forward to going fully bonkers for a bit, or have already done so.
Oh, they are going to go fully bonkers alright. They will be flirting very much with the political movements that have seen parties like FdI, RN, PVV and the AfD achieve success in Europe.
But while I think they’re going to go off the deep end, there is risk there. We shouldn’t just rely on the old mantra that the parties at the centre always win in British politics. If Labour are seen to have failed to get a grip on things in their first term, the danger grows. We should all be hoping that the next Labour government enjoys at least some moderate successes, to give the Tory Party or its replacement time to come to its senses.
if the Great British Voter decides she wants a hard right government, that will reintroduce the noose and turn back the boats with water cannon, then that is her right. How is this a “risk”? It is democracy
The risk is not that this is a positive choice by voters. If the majority of the public do indeed choose this from a range of realistic alternatives, fine.
The risk is that Labour underperforms, lots of people get enraged and lodge a protest vote, but the timing of the Conservatives’ bonkers phase means the only alternative to a hapless Labour Party are swivel-eyed loons.
I’d argue this is what’s happening in USA. It doesn’t lead to good politics, or policy.
We can only pray
Yes but we're praying the national populist right doesn't get rolling here.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
Also the left/right issue. Compare also the Spanich distinction between indfependista and nacionalista. Which matches the Scottish distinction between SNP and Slab-ScoTories.
It's not a new issue, anyway. I dimly remember Nicola Sturgeon discussing the whole question of a rename with one of the more sane interviewers - maybe at an Edinburgh Book Festival event?
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
They came 14th in the 2022 local elections in Scotland and 9th in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election. I think we can agree that is a positive trajectory.
Comments
It's becoming both dark and absurd. Is this really us? Surely it isn't.
- immigration
- housing
- productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
However, the route back is difficult given they are - and would be yet more - uncoalitionable. Remember Cameron got back in through coalition, his Tories being by then sufficiently moderate looking to allow the Lib Dems to countenance the idea. A wacko Tory party under someone like Braverman or Truss isn't going to be able to do anything beyond C&S with the DUP.
One interesting outcome for election 2028/9 is Labour as largest party but a minority, with an increased Lib Dem and SNP seat count (assuming the latter drops this time). That's the moment PR becomes a real prospect.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Yes, that is the problem with winter holidays in the sun:
1. If they are short, you are all-too-quickly returned to the hideous British winter, which now feels even more hideous in comparison
2. You will now expect them, every winter, and it will like a terrible deprivation if you don't get one
However, I don;t understand, you have plenty of money, you are retired, your offspring are grown, you could sod off to Madeira or Lanzarote - or, indeed, Indcohina - for a month or two. Skip most of winter. Why not?
I'm just now stepping out in my shirtsleeves for a gin under the stars
They are all interdependent.
Everyone in this country has widespread abundance of food, and people are spending a smaller percentage of wages than ever before on food. With a much wider range of both food and food sources too.
That is one huge success story.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
A couple of cancelled meetings owing to illness (not me but those holding the meeting) have given me a rare window of opportunity for other things.
The YouGov poll is poor for the LDs but downright horrible for the Conservatives. The swing from Conservative to Labour is 20% which would, if repeated and applied uniformly, push the Conservatives below 100 seats though they would still be the leading opposition parties.
A good poll for Reform but I suspect Reform strength mirrors Conservative strength in some areas so the only beneficiary of Conservative votes going to Reform will be Labour. The Clacton numbers last weekend showed slightly more Conservatives than going Labour but that was enough to make the 5th safest Conservative seat look like a marginal (and that was even before Farage).
It's almost certainly an outlier but Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be praying it is.
Tenerife seems like a dream to me now
It took me 4 hours to fly back to cold and raw
2 is fine since we plan to do that. Maybe 10 days next time. Same hotel.
Why not the whole winter? It would feel indulgent and a bit artificial. Family reasons also.
Despite voting for governments promising to be increasingly beastly to foreigners, migration goes up and up, to record levels under Sunak.
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
What’s your aim?
Not everyone, sure, but a bit of red pepper on top does not make a frozen pizza wholefood.
I hope I am wrong.
Joking apart, from a decidedly middle class background I hadn't even heard of an avo until I went to Uni in the mid 00s.
They simply didn't exist in the popular Dorset consciousness then...
I’m just under 6 foot (yes yes, all men say that, but it is the case)
The BMI says I should be 80kg or under, however in my experience that is too light for me. I have a rugby forward’s physique. Barrel chested. Solid. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
So I start to look quite weird and pathetic if I go much under 80kg, I bottomed out at 74kg in about 2015 and I didn’t look better, in photos I look a tad scrawny
80-82kg is my ideal spot, I think. I also don’t want to get Ozempic Face when you lose so much weight, so fast, your entire face collapses
BTW did anyone find out if that’s what happened to Boris? His weight loss was shockingly fast, and definitely aged him
They'd be wise not to do that.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
https://x.com/independent_ie/status/1747720670203584937
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
Con 36%
Lab 29%
Reform 20%
Lib Dem 8%
Green 5%
If the voting age was raised to 65, EC would have a Tory majority of 80. It might be Sunak's only chance.
But they actually have to stop the boats.
Posturing about it. Claiming to have been stymied by the Lords or courts, etc, won't be enough, because the trust isn't there. If they don't manage to actually stop the boats then they're sunk, because they'll have raised the salience of the issue and failed. Farage does have the trust of those voters. He would win their votes in droves.
Does anyone expect Sunak to stop the boats this summer?
Taiwan is defacto independent, but everyone pretends.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
That makes me sound rather odd, doesn't it? But it also means that my torso is rather long, and therefore heavier than usual.
But I'd also mention mental happiness: IMV its better to be four or five kilos off your 'ideal' weight and happy, rather than at your ideal weight and constantly stressing about it, or going on faddy diets.
TBH, some of the most content people I know are overweight.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/uc574iv/574m15.htm
The fun bit is when you present the idea to people.
So far, I've been told this would collapse some industries. I reckon this could be true. At least massive disruption.
And the other issue is that suddenly a large number of people would have no means of support - not eligible for benefits and no income.
Feck the Oirish
My ex wife noted that I have “very shapely lady legs” (sorry for too much info, I’m on my 2nd G&T and these days I’m a lightweight) but she also noted that these legs simply don’t fit the rest of me, which is stocky and rugby forward-esque. I’m like one of those cars which is actually two smashed up cars blowtorched together
On the other hand I can now see hints of cheekbones in my face for the first time in maybe three years so I am sticking with the diet regime, for now. AND I HAVE LOST THE MOOBS
This is making me happy
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Varadkar is a fucking snake. UGH
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
My God China is so old! Theoretically it can trace its origins as a coherent polity to 2000BC, certainly 1000BC. Incredible. And in pre Christian times it had empires able to build 5000km of road and station 300,000 men on a frontier, and it is still here now, in largely the same place with the same boundaries
It is like the Roman Empire was born just after Stonehenge was built, compromising most of Europe, and it stayed the Roman Empire until now, with an ethnically homogeneous population
No wonder they think they are THE Middle Kingdom. The pivot and fulcrum of the world
Were Fava Beans and Chianti involved?
He once made me and her a dinner of stuffed hearts (I forget what hearts, looking back must have been calf or sheep?) - my God they were delicious. Exactly as you describe. Melt in the mouth and entirely unexpected
The risk is that Labour underperforms, lots of people get enraged and lodge a protest vote, but the timing of the Conservatives’ bonkers phase means the only alternative to a hapless Labour Party are swivel-eyed loons.
I’d argue this is what’s happening in USA. It doesn’t lead to good politics, or policy.
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
It's debatable how consistent its hsitory can be considered to be, though my knowledge of the older stuff is minimal. Qin, the dynasty pre-Han and who provided the 'first' emperor of Qin Shi Huangdi (the king in Hero, which is a great film but perhaps not neutral on the emperor), was originally one of multiple competing kingdoms. That's a good example of the saying "The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide."
Parts now within the modern borders of China (the land of the Uighers[sp] spring to mind) were not historically within its borders. That said, the north-east was snipped off by Russia and deprived China of part of its coastline so it does swing both ways. /endramble
And traits we see, today, as classically Chinese - the nationwide bureaucracy, the obsession with education and hierarchy, the surprisingly and paradoxically meritocratic civil service, the idea of duty to nation/empire - can also be dated to the period 1000BC onwards. For example, Confucius - still a deep, living influence on Chinese thought - was born in 550 BC - a century before Plato
There is this one feature that's missing from the product, and once it is delivered, people will flock to it, and the business will be saved. It's some kind of technical Hail Mary, and the entire management team is bought into the cult of the One Killer Feature.
And what happens is that the killer feature is added, and maybe the needle moves a little bit, but the business is not saved.
Successful businesses iterate. They take what they have, and every day they make it a little bit better.
The current government is a failing startup. And Rwanda is their Hail Mary.
Instead of governing well, and improving everything a little every day, they have invested all their metaphorical eggs in a policy to send a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda so they can claim asylum there.
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
https://www.businessinsider.com/homeless-people-vancouver-universal-basic-income-2024-1?r=US&IR=T
This frees up the USA and Oz to concentrate on China, and keep the slopes in order, as you should do in a chaotic multinational ski resort
There is another aspect which is where Five Eyes meets AI (this is explicitly mentioned in the AUKUS treaty). UK plus Oz plus, of course, USA on AI is quite a combo. This could be absolutely crucial. If the Anglosphere can gain a critical and pivotal advantage in AI that could corner China for decades, and also really piss off the French
Win WIN
As for those attack points - the response should be - AND? If you can’t make money legally you shouldn’t be doing it.
And if you have no support - report yourself as an illegal immigrant and we’ll happily pay for the flight home.
After all that’s the point of the scheme
The pitch is that if one asylum seeker sets foot on Rwandan soil before election day, Rishi Sunak's premiership will have been vindicated.
What those poll rating show is that even if a narrow plurality are in favour of trying to ship off asylum seekers to Rwanda, most people don't think it would be either effective or good value for money. Making it a flagship policy is just crazy.
Partly it was uni, at undergraduate level - I was in quite a diverse group in halls and learned some Indian and north African meals from basic ingredients through friends. But I wasn't all that adventurous post-uni. I think the real transformation was as a postgrad a few years later where I lived near a large Co-Op serving a quite deprived mostly WWC area, but clearly there was either a national/regional policy on what was stocked or the manager was a foodie and not very in tune with customers. I, also skint, would go in after a day at the uni and trawl the reduced aisle, which tended to include nice cuts of beef, lots of seafood, exotic vegetables and fruit, fresh tuna steaks* etc. I'd hoover these up, take them home and google how to cook them with some other basic ingredients, such as spices that I began to accumulate. After a year or two I was eating better than I ever had for less than I'd ever spent.
*first time I bought these the lady on the checkout peered at it suspiciously and wanted to take it off me as it was a funny colour, being the deep red/brown of fresh tuna, rather than cooked tuna-in-a-tin colour
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
AUKUS is a deeply serious new venture. It is the USA going beyond NATO and imagining a post NATO world when Russia is no longer a threat - or, when Russia is only a threat to Western Europe which, quite frankly, is easily rich enough to defend itself (Trump is merely willing to say out loud what a lot of Americans think in silence). AUKUS is obviously aimed at China (and maybe even India, eventually)
The eventual concept must be AUKUS plus NZ and Canada, the Five Eyes, all English speaking, with English Common Law, and with four of them actually with the same head of state - the British monarch. That is a potent global alliance which has a very good chance of running the world for another century, whatever China does
After that, Aliens
It's not a new issue, anyway. I dimly remember Nicola Sturgeon discussing the whole question of a rename with one of the more sane interviewers - maybe at an Edinburgh Book Festival event?
They came 14th in the 2022 local elections in Scotland and 9th in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election. I think we can agree that is a positive trajectory.