Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why Keir Starmer is the new Boris Johnson – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 15 in General
Why Keir Starmer is the new Boris Johnson – politicalbetting.com

Great stat. A useful reminder that, contrary to persistent myths on parts of the right, Johnson was not a popular leader in 2019 https://t.co/JC655jVuN4

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,629
    First!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    Prepare the Downing Street Garden for the donkeys I guess.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654

    Prepare the Downing Street Garden for the donkeys I guess.

    Nah, the equines were his mum's - that activity closed down when the lady passed on.

    Pity though, it would have been fun. And good for Mrs T's roses.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,880
    Managing to make himself less popular than Corbyn without even having to resort to antisemitism is some achievement.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    Prepare the Downing Street Garden for the donkeys I guess.

    Why, are the Cabinet going to start meeting in it?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 46,805
    Correlation is not causation.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,705
    ydoethur said:

    Prepare the Downing Street Garden for the donkeys I guess.

    Why, are the Cabinet going to start meeting in it?
    Next pandemic lock-down, with drinks, nibbles and karaoke.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    edited February 8
    Boris had 36% gross positives with IPSOS compared to Sir Keir’s 29%
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
    That wouldn't be totally unreasonable, as a position.

    Unlike saying he can run, but not serve..
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
    Yes much pf the support for Trump boils down to this. People want to hurt the elites. Of course they want their own lives to improve too but in the absence of that they will settle for hurting the elites. The fact Trump is seen as an asshole doesnt harm him with these people.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    edited February 8

    ydoethur said:

    Prepare the Downing Street Garden for the donkeys I guess.

    Why, are the Cabinet going to start meeting in it?
    Next pandemic lock-down, with drinks, nibbles and karaoke.
    A bunch of asses getting themselves in a hole?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
    Having lost to 'none of the above' in Nevada, Nikki Haley is resorting to calling it a scam. I think her campaign is starting to unravel and it's difficult to see how she'll be able to continue after she loses in her own state of South Carolina later this month.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nikki-haley-nevada-caucus-scam_n_65c4193fe4b069b665ddf259
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    15th May 2017 Theresa May’s IPSOS leader rating was 55-35 (+20)

    Two weeks later it was 43-50 (-7)

    Incredible!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 17,802
    Viewcode, "The Intermarium", politicalbetting.com, 29Jan2023

    "...When Russia reinvaded Ukraine in 2022, Poland was well placed to go non-linear, and they did. They plan to move defense expenditure to 5% of GDP and went on a spending spree: guns, helicopters, AFVs and tanks. Lots of tanks. All the tanks. The orders they have placed will give them more tanks than UK, France and Germany. Combined..."

    Peter Zeihan, "Poland, After America", Zeihan on Geopolitics, 07Feb2024

    "...the Polish government fast forward plans to expand their tank force uh they cut a deal with the South Koreans and have already imported 180 tanks from Korea stocks uh and there are plans underfoot already in development to manufacture another 800 and some within Poland itself uh when this is finished (and it's supposed to be finished within 3 years) it's not that Poland will have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom or France or Italy or Germany it's that it'll have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom and France and Italy and Germany..."
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197
    Ukrainian Minister of Defence Umerov confirms that Zaluzhny is out.

    https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1755630015171989681?s=20
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    ydoethur said:

    Prepare the Downing Street Garden for the donkeys I guess.

    Why, are the Cabinet going to start meeting in it?
    Next pandemic lock-down, with drinks, nibbles and karaoke.
    See you here!


  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    isam said:

    Boris had 36% gross positives with IPSOS compared to Sir Keir’s 29%

    Sir Keir’s 29% is pretty bad

    These are the last IPSOS before the GE, so not the same stage of parliament, but…

    Cameron 46
    Ed 35
    May 43
    Jez 39
    Boris 36
    Jez 24
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,243
    edited February 8
    A cheery article title.

    "‘Enshittification’ is coming for absolutely everything"

    https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0-047b7d64aba5
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    Harper said:

    Ukrainian Minister of Defence Umerov confirms that Zaluzhny is out.

    https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1755630015171989681?s=20

    I'd be careful 'trusting' that particular Twitter feed. They may be right, but it's hardly evidence.

    In the meantime, have they reported on where Sokolov and Gerasimov are?

    https://www.newsweek.com/putins-top-generals-have-gone-missing-1866349
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    edited February 8
    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308

    Harper said:

    Ukrainian Minister of Defence Umerov confirms that Zaluzhny is out.

    https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1755630015171989681?s=20

    I'd be careful 'trusting' that particular Twitter feed. They may be right, but it's hardly evidence.

    In the meantime, have they reported on where Sokolov and Gerasimov are?

    https://www.newsweek.com/putins-top-generals-have-gone-missing-1866349
    Reported elsewhere, including the Kyiv Independent.

    Replaced by Syrskyi.
  • A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,902
    Andy_JS said:

    A cheery article title.

    "‘Enshittification’ is coming for absolutely everything"

    https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0-047b7d64aba5

    And written by the guy who actually coined the term, too.

    His lecture, here, a couple of weeks ago, was also very good - https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/#ich-bin-ein-bratapfel
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072

    Harper said:

    Ukrainian Minister of Defence Umerov confirms that Zaluzhny is out.

    https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1755630015171989681?s=20

    I'd be careful 'trusting' that particular Twitter feed. They may be right, but it's hardly evidence.

    In the meantime, have they reported on where Sokolov and Gerasimov are?

    https://www.newsweek.com/putins-top-generals-have-gone-missing-1866349
    Reported elsewhere, including the Kyiv Independent.

    Replaced by Syrskyi.
    Urrmm...

    https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1755622695478128947

    Which indicates that if he has left, it is at his own choosing. *If* being the conditional.

    But I must mention the difference between this and Russia, who seem to have lost sight of the commanders who are supposed to be running things...
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,535
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Boris had 36% gross positives with IPSOS compared to Sir Keir’s 29%

    Sir Keir’s 29% is pretty bad

    These are the last IPSOS before the GE, so not the same stage of parliament, but…

    Cameron 46
    Ed 35
    May 43
    Jez 39
    Boris 36
    Jez 24
    That's half a comparison. As such it favours Marmite figures. What were the gross negatives and the net figures?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    edited February 8
    FPT, minus the typos
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.

    None of the above has anything to do with how a country treats its own native unemployables and their children.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    edited February 8

    Harper said:

    Ukrainian Minister of Defence Umerov confirms that Zaluzhny is out.

    https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1755630015171989681?s=20

    I'd be careful 'trusting' that particular Twitter feed. They may be right, but it's hardly evidence.

    In the meantime, have they reported on where Sokolov and Gerasimov are?

    https://www.newsweek.com/putins-top-generals-have-gone-missing-1866349
    Reported elsewhere, including the Kyiv Independent.

    Replaced by Syrskyi.
    Urrmm...

    https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1755622695478128947

    Which indicates that if he has left, it is at his own choosing. *If* being the conditional.

    But I must mention the difference between this and Russia, who seem to have lost sight of the commanders who are supposed to be running things...
    Zaluzhny is no longer the Commander in Chief. It sounds like Zelenskyy has offered him a different role, but he hasn't yet decided whether to accept it.

    Democracies often change political and military leadership during long wars - Britain certainly did during both World Wars (or all three, if you include the Napoleonic).

    Correction: the change in leadership is happening tomorrow.
  • ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
    I don't think they'll do it on the basis of lack of a conviction.

    The 14th amendment makes absolutely no reference to conviction, and there is no specific offence of insurrection. So that would go well beyond the natural wording (in a way conservatve justices won't be keen on at all - the drafting cound have said "convicted of" but didn't, it said "engaged in"). It would also go beyond the original intent at the time of post-Civil War reconstruction.

    It also begs too many questions - in particular, it leaves the question hanging of whether a conviction in upcoming trials would do it.

    I think Colorado will certainly lose (even Kagan, a liberal justice, sounded a bit sceptical in the bit I heard, and Roberts and Kavanaugh certainly were - albeit they all need to challenge counsel). But not on those grounds, I suspect.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
    Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.

    Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work)
    Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 768
    edited February 8
    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.

    None of the above has anything to do with how a country treats its own native unemployables and their children.
    This makes perfect sense, in my view, if you can sustain a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism that says we should allow other countries to foot the bill for training and educating our workforce, as well as caring for them once they are no longer productive.

    In my view that is completely unsustainable, and attempting to sustain it will only hasten the end of the West’s global leadership as well as the rules-based global order.

    Far better, in my view, to aim for an immigration policy that reflects the global reality that each person has equal worth, and we should be striving towards global equality, not entrenching inequality.

    ETA: this latter approach would have the side benefit of reducing the likelihood of eg conflicts in the Middle East, coups in the Sahel, etc etc.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
    I don't think they'll do it on the basis of lack of a conviction.

    The 14th amendment makes absolutely no reference to conviction, and there is no specific offence of insurrection. So that would go well beyond the natural wording (in a way conservatve justices won't be keen on at all - the drafting cound have said "convicted of" but didn't, it said "engaged in"). It would also go beyond the original intent at the time of post-Civil War reconstruction.

    It also begs too many questions - in particular, it leaves the question hanging of whether a conviction in upcoming trials would do it.

    I think Colorado will certainly lose (even Kagan, a liberal justice, sounded a bit sceptical in the bit I heard, and Roberts and Kavanaugh certainly were - albeit they all need to challenge counsel). But not on those grounds, I suspect.
    I don't think Colorado's attorney exactly helped by saying that ruling Colorado was right wouldn't affect other states' decisions on eligibility.

    The whole point of the Constitution is that it affects every state.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
    Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.

    Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work)
    Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
    With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.

    Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197
    This now from the telegraph on Zaluzhny

    Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday announced the sacking of the commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces.

    The dismissal comes after weeks of speculation over General Valery Zaluzhny’s future after the pair became embroiled in a row over strategy.

    Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrsky, who led the defence of Kyiv in 2022 as well as the assault on the eastern Kharkiv region later that year, will take over as Commander-in-Chief.

    Announcing the move on Telegram, Mr Zelensky wrote: The time for such an update is now.”

    The statement added the president and the general had discussed “what kind of renewal the armed forces of Ukraine needs”.

    In his own statement, Gen Zaluzhny wrote: “A decision was made about the need to change approaches and strategy.”

    Follow the latest updates below and join the conversation in the comments section
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    edited February 8

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Boris had 36% gross positives with IPSOS compared to Sir Keir’s 29%

    Sir Keir’s 29% is pretty bad

    These are the last IPSOS before the GE, so not the same stage of parliament, but…

    Cameron 46
    Ed 35
    May 43
    Jez 39
    Boris 36
    Jez 24
    That's half a comparison. As such it favours Marmite figures. What were the gross negatives and the net figures?
    The problem with net figures is the gross negative figure includes people who won’t vote, so don’t matter

    Cameron 46-48
    Ed 36-54
    May 43-50
    Jez 39-50
    Boris 36-56
    Jez 24-68

  • isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    Whilst I see some reason for that, it has some problems.

    In particular, people who aren't going to vote for your party might or might not vote at all, or might decide to waste their vote. They are less likely to do that if they really hate you than if they are ambivalent.

    I'd also note that quite a few people who voted Conservative had unfavourable views of Johnson. Part of that was Corbyn - Johnson was the lesser of two evils so if you're "very unfavourable" on Corbyn and "somewhat unfavourable" on Johnson, you hold your nose. Part of that is that you might just like the Conservative Party and think "well, he's a here today, gone tomorrow politician - they'll probably chuck him under a bus in a year or two". Those who took that view were remarkably prescient, whether or not they liked what followed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    Harper said:

    This now from the telegraph on Zaluzhny

    Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday announced the sacking of the commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces.

    The dismissal comes after weeks of speculation over General Valery Zaluzhny’s future after the pair became embroiled in a row over strategy.

    Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrsky, who led the defence of Kyiv in 2022 as well as the assault on the eastern Kharkiv region later that year, will take over as Commander-in-Chief.

    Announcing the move on Telegram, Mr Zelensky wrote: The time for such an update is now.”

    The statement added the president and the general had discussed “what kind of renewal the armed forces of Ukraine needs”.

    In his own statement, Gen Zaluzhny wrote: “A decision was made about the need to change approaches and strategy.”

    Follow the latest updates below and join the conversation in the comments section

    It appears different things are reported on Twitter and Telegram. It may be true... but may be false.

    And in the meantime, where are Sokolov and Gerasimov? You know, the people supposed to be helping run Russia's war?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    maxh said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.

    None of the above has anything to do with how a country treats its own native unemployables and their children.
    This makes perfect sense, in my view, if you can sustain a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism that says we should allow other countries to foot the bill for training and educating our workforce, as well as caring for them once they are no longer productive.

    In my view that is completely unsustainable, and attempting to sustain it will only hasten the end of the West’s global leadership as well as the rules-based global order.

    Far better, in my view, to aim for an immigration policy that reflects the global reality that each person has equal worth, and we should be striving towards global equality, not entrenching inequality.

    ETA: this latter approach would have the side benefit of reducing the likelihood of eg conflicts in the Middle East, coups in the Sahel, etc etc.
    Is there not an implicit sense of exceptionalism in your position? Why should this state of global unity be realised under the leadership of the West rather than, say, an Islamic caliphate?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,339
    Labour cans officially its green spending plans.

    Ed Miliband totally onside and not resigning.

    Principle v Ministerial salary later this year ?

    https://news.sky.com/story/labour-confirms-u-turn-on-28bn-green-spending-pledge-13066856
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
    I don't think they'll do it on the basis of lack of a conviction.

    The 14th amendment makes absolutely no reference to conviction, and there is no specific offence of insurrection. So that would go well beyond the natural wording (in a way conservatve justices won't be keen on at all - the drafting cound have said "convicted of" but didn't, it said "engaged in"). It would also go beyond the original intent at the time of post-Civil War reconstruction.

    It also begs too many questions - in particular, it leaves the question hanging of whether a conviction in upcoming trials would do it.

    I think Colorado will certainly lose (even Kagan, a liberal justice, sounded a bit sceptical in the bit I heard, and Roberts and Kavanaugh certainly were - albeit they all need to challenge counsel). But not on those grounds, I suspect.
    I don't think Colorado's attorney exactly helped by saying that ruling Colorado was right wouldn't affect other states' decisions on eligibility.

    The whole point of the Constitution is that it affects every state.
    Yes, Kagan clearly thought that was bollocks. He doesn't need to win every point, of course. Cases are often "X, and, if you don't accept that, in the alternative Y". So counsel being hammered on a point isn't necessarily fatal. But getting the death stare from someone you'd really hope would be with you isn't ideal.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    And Keir, with a similar net but poorer gross, is on for an even bigger one. So ... ??
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 768

    maxh said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.

    None of the above has anything to do with how a country treats its own native unemployables and their children.
    This makes perfect sense, in my view, if you can sustain a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism that says we should allow other countries to foot the bill for training and educating our workforce, as well as caring for them once they are no longer productive.

    In my view that is completely unsustainable, and attempting to sustain it will only hasten the end of the West’s global leadership as well as the rules-based global order.

    Far better, in my view, to aim for an immigration policy that reflects the global reality that each person has equal worth, and we should be striving towards global equality, not entrenching inequality.

    ETA: this latter approach would have the side benefit of reducing the likelihood of eg conflicts in the Middle East, coups in the Sahel, etc etc.
    Is there not an implicit sense of exceptionalism in your position? Why should this state of global unity be realised under the leadership of the West rather than, say, an Islamic caliphate?
    If you mean the sort of exceptionalism that holds that democracy and the rule of law is preferable to theocracy and beheading those you don’t like, then yes.
  • Taz said:

    Labour cans officially its green spending plans.

    Ed Miliband totally onside and not resigning.

    Principle v Ministerial salary later this year ?

    https://news.sky.com/story/labour-confirms-u-turn-on-28bn-green-spending-pledge-13066856

    His wife is a High Court judge on £200k so I doubt the salary bothers Ed Miliband.

    The fact is resigning would achieve f*** all other than making a Labour win at the next election less likely, and he'd probably prefer a tactical retreat and seek to make the case for spending from around the cabinet table rather than two rows back in the House of Commons.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    edited February 8
    maxh said:

    maxh said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.

    None of the above has anything to do with how a country treats its own native unemployables and their children.
    This makes perfect sense, in my view, if you can sustain a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism that says we should allow other countries to foot the bill for training and educating our workforce, as well as caring for them once they are no longer productive.

    In my view that is completely unsustainable, and attempting to sustain it will only hasten the end of the West’s global leadership as well as the rules-based global order.

    Far better, in my view, to aim for an immigration policy that reflects the global reality that each person has equal worth, and we should be striving towards global equality, not entrenching inequality.

    ETA: this latter approach would have the side benefit of reducing the likelihood of eg conflicts in the Middle East, coups in the Sahel, etc etc.
    Is there not an implicit sense of exceptionalism in your position? Why should this state of global unity be realised under the leadership of the West rather than, say, an Islamic caliphate?
    If you mean the sort of exceptionalism that holds that democracy and the rule of law is preferable to theocracy and beheading those you don’t like, then yes.
    And do you think it's preferable to exclude people who believe in theocracy and beheading from your society?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,069
    Taz said:

    Labour cans officially its green spending plans.

    Ed Miliband totally onside and not resigning.

    Principle v Ministerial salary later this year ?

    https://news.sky.com/story/labour-confirms-u-turn-on-28bn-green-spending-pledge-13066856

    Do you mean canned? Or do you mean added realism, with the reality of no money left?

    You’ve obviously missed the bit where this governments tax cuts this year are not for keeps, whichever party wins, these pre election tax cuts have to be reversed next year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hunt-tax-cut-reversed-election-ifs-b2484584.html

    What part of no money left for foreseeable future, so thank God for fiscal conservatism, honesty and reality from someone don’t you understand, Taz? 😀
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381

    Prepare the Downing Street Garden for the donkeys I guess.

    Surely the Edstone will finally spring back into being?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,743

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    Whilst I see some reason for that, it has some problems.

    In particular, people who aren't going to vote for your party might or might not vote at all, or might decide to waste their vote. They are less likely to do that if they really hate you than if they are ambivalent.

    I'd also note that quite a few people who voted Conservative had unfavourable views of Johnson. Part of that was Corbyn - Johnson was the lesser of two evils so if you're "very unfavourable" on Corbyn and "somewhat unfavourable" on Johnson, you hold your nose. Part of that is that you might just like the Conservative Party and think "well, he's a here today, gone tomorrow politician - they'll probably chuck him under a bus in a year or two". Those who took that view were remarkably prescient, whether or not they liked what followed.
    Under FPTP, Conservatives on 42-43% can either be a landslide (1983, 2019) or a hung parliament (2017).

    The difference is what the other 58% do. If they really train their fire on the blue team, with lots of tactical efficiency, the Conservatives are in trouble. If Labour hate the Liberals (2015) or Liberals don't trust Labour (1983, 2019), the Conservatives are on easy street.

    That's I think why net scores are useful. In our system, the extent to which voters of the second and third parties hate each other compared with hating the first party has a huge influence on the results in a given constituency. Forty percent wins against a 30-30 split, but not a 50-10 one.

    And then there's the net (red v blue) net (positive v negative) thing, which might be the best predictor of the lot. Johnson wasn't popular in 2019, just a lot more popular than the alternative.

    Starmer isn't popular in 2024...
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    And Keir, with a similar net but poorer gross, is on for an even bigger one. So ... ??
    Poorer net & gross.

    So fewer people like him is all we can say for sure I suppose.

    Bet on low turnout? Not with me though, I’m not inviting your double crossing, snideyness back
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,339

    Taz said:

    Labour cans officially its green spending plans.

    Ed Miliband totally onside and not resigning.

    Principle v Ministerial salary later this year ?

    https://news.sky.com/story/labour-confirms-u-turn-on-28bn-green-spending-pledge-13066856

    His wife is a High Court judge on £200k so I doubt the salary bothers Ed Miliband.

    The fact is resigning would achieve f*** all other than making a Labour win at the next election less likely, and he'd probably prefer a tactical retreat and seek to make the case for spending from around the cabinet table rather than two rows back in the House of Commons.
    His resigning would make a labour win less likely !!

    Not a chance. It would excite the political anoraks for a week and be forgotten by the time the election comes round.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,669
    maxh said:

    maxh said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.

    None of the above has anything to do with how a country treats its own native unemployables and their children.
    This makes perfect sense, in my view, if you can sustain a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism that says we should allow other countries to foot the bill for training and educating our workforce, as well as caring for them once they are no longer productive.

    In my view that is completely unsustainable, and attempting to sustain it will only hasten the end of the West’s global leadership as well as the rules-based global order.

    Far better, in my view, to aim for an immigration policy that reflects the global reality that each person has equal worth, and we should be striving towards global equality, not entrenching inequality.

    ETA: this latter approach would have the side benefit of reducing the likelihood of eg conflicts in the Middle East, coups in the Sahel, etc etc.
    Is there not an implicit sense of exceptionalism in your position? Why should this state of global unity be realised under the leadership of the West rather than, say, an Islamic caliphate?
    If you mean the sort of exceptionalism that holds that democracy and the rule of law is preferable to theocracy and beheading those you don’t like, then yes.
    I've always assumed that at some point the world will be one, federalised country. Probably at the point at which either we are threatened with annihilation by aliens or when humans start to colonise other planets in a concerted fashion. Could be a century away, could be a millennium or more. But in the scale of human history a millennium isn't that long.

    If the earth were 10 times its current size (and ignore the gravitational and physiological implications of that for a moment) we would probably have one or two countries that were already similar in size, population and possibly linguistic diversity to the whole global population of this earth. What keeps us up at the c.200 country mark is the fact that as of now the earth is humans' whole sphere of existence.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    viewcode said:

    Viewcode, "The Intermarium", politicalbetting.com, 29Jan2023

    "...When Russia reinvaded Ukraine in 2022, Poland was well placed to go non-linear, and they did. They plan to move defense expenditure to 5% of GDP and went on a spending spree: guns, helicopters, AFVs and tanks. Lots of tanks. All the tanks. The orders they have placed will give them more tanks than UK, France and Germany. Combined..."

    Peter Zeihan, "Poland, After America", Zeihan on Geopolitics, 07Feb2024

    "...the Polish government fast forward plans to expand their tank force uh they cut a deal with the South Koreans and have already imported 180 tanks from Korea stocks uh and there are plans underfoot already in development to manufacture another 800 and some within Poland itself uh when this is finished (and it's supposed to be finished within 3 years) it's not that Poland will have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom or France or Italy or Germany it's that it'll have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom and France and Italy and Germany..."

    Poland would slaughter Russia in a fight right now and the imbalance is increasing. But I am not sure that the message of the Ukraine war is that tanks are the way to go...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    DavidL said:

    viewcode said:

    Viewcode, "The Intermarium", politicalbetting.com, 29Jan2023

    "...When Russia reinvaded Ukraine in 2022, Poland was well placed to go non-linear, and they did. They plan to move defense expenditure to 5% of GDP and went on a spending spree: guns, helicopters, AFVs and tanks. Lots of tanks. All the tanks. The orders they have placed will give them more tanks than UK, France and Germany. Combined..."

    Peter Zeihan, "Poland, After America", Zeihan on Geopolitics, 07Feb2024

    "...the Polish government fast forward plans to expand their tank force uh they cut a deal with the South Koreans and have already imported 180 tanks from Korea stocks uh and there are plans underfoot already in development to manufacture another 800 and some within Poland itself uh when this is finished (and it's supposed to be finished within 3 years) it's not that Poland will have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom or France or Italy or Germany it's that it'll have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom and France and Italy and Germany..."

    Poland would slaughter Russia in a fight right now and the imbalance is increasing. But I am not sure that the message of the Ukraine war is that tanks are the way to go...
    You get no tanks for anything in a drone zone.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 768
    edited February 8

    maxh said:

    maxh said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.

    None of the above has anything to do with how a country treats its own native unemployables and their children.
    This makes perfect sense, in my view, if you can sustain a sense of nationalism and exceptionalism that says we should allow other countries to foot the bill for training and educating our workforce, as well as caring for them once they are no longer productive.

    In my view that is completely unsustainable, and attempting to sustain it will only hasten the end of the West’s global leadership as well as the rules-based global order.

    Far better, in my view, to aim for an immigration policy that reflects the global reality that each person has equal worth, and we should be striving towards global equality, not entrenching inequality.

    ETA: this latter approach would have the side benefit of reducing the likelihood of eg conflicts in the Middle East, coups in the Sahel, etc etc.
    Is there not an implicit sense of exceptionalism in your position? Why should this state of global unity be realised under the leadership of the West rather than, say, an Islamic caliphate?
    If you mean the sort of exceptionalism that holds that democracy and the rule of law is preferable to theocracy and beheading those you don’t like, then yes.
    And do you think it's preferable to exclude people who believe in theocracy and beheading from your society?
    Depends whether they commit a crime. I don’t believe in thought-police.

    Rule of law, innit?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,669
    DavidL said:

    viewcode said:

    Viewcode, "The Intermarium", politicalbetting.com, 29Jan2023

    "...When Russia reinvaded Ukraine in 2022, Poland was well placed to go non-linear, and they did. They plan to move defense expenditure to 5% of GDP and went on a spending spree: guns, helicopters, AFVs and tanks. Lots of tanks. All the tanks. The orders they have placed will give them more tanks than UK, France and Germany. Combined..."

    Peter Zeihan, "Poland, After America", Zeihan on Geopolitics, 07Feb2024

    "...the Polish government fast forward plans to expand their tank force uh they cut a deal with the South Koreans and have already imported 180 tanks from Korea stocks uh and there are plans underfoot already in development to manufacture another 800 and some within Poland itself uh when this is finished (and it's supposed to be finished within 3 years) it's not that Poland will have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom or France or Italy or Germany it's that it'll have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom and France and Italy and Germany..."

    Poland would slaughter Russia in a fight right now and the imbalance is increasing. But I am not sure that the message of the Ukraine war is that tanks are the way to go...
    The message to me is that air superiority is the only way to go. Otherwise you're back in the Somme. It's been the lack of meaningful aerial impact on either side that's made this war so static and WW1-like.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    DavidL said:

    viewcode said:

    Viewcode, "The Intermarium", politicalbetting.com, 29Jan2023

    "...When Russia reinvaded Ukraine in 2022, Poland was well placed to go non-linear, and they did. They plan to move defense expenditure to 5% of GDP and went on a spending spree: guns, helicopters, AFVs and tanks. Lots of tanks. All the tanks. The orders they have placed will give them more tanks than UK, France and Germany. Combined..."

    Peter Zeihan, "Poland, After America", Zeihan on Geopolitics, 07Feb2024

    "...the Polish government fast forward plans to expand their tank force uh they cut a deal with the South Koreans and have already imported 180 tanks from Korea stocks uh and there are plans underfoot already in development to manufacture another 800 and some within Poland itself uh when this is finished (and it's supposed to be finished within 3 years) it's not that Poland will have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom or France or Italy or Germany it's that it'll have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom and France and Italy and Germany..."

    Poland would slaughter Russia in a fight right now and the imbalance is increasing. But I am not sure that the message of the Ukraine war is that tanks are the way to go...
    The tanks need airforce back up to get rolling.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,477
    edited February 8
    OK, sounds as though the 14A case is all done bar the opinion writing.

    SCOTUS has found its off-ramp. Trump's gonna be back on the ballot because states can't bar federal candidates from office under Sec 3.
    https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1755628075557999047

    Great thread, which captures the style of the various ghouls on the bench pretty well.

    Politico concurs.
    https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/08/trump-supreme-court

    (Trump’s lawyer is again shit, but it doesn’t matter, as the justices made his arguments for him.)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    NATIONAL POLL: Morning Consult

    (R) Trump: 45% [+1]
    (D) Biden: 40% [-2]

    [+/- Change vs Jan. 26-28]

    GOP Primary
    • Donald Trump: 80% (+62)
    • Nikki Haley: 18%

    6,138 RV | GOP=3,752 LV | Feb. 4-6

    https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1755405702393213063
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,669

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    Whilst I see some reason for that, it has some problems.

    In particular, people who aren't going to vote for your party might or might not vote at all, or might decide to waste their vote. They are less likely to do that if they really hate you than if they are ambivalent.

    I'd also note that quite a few people who voted Conservative had unfavourable views of Johnson. Part of that was Corbyn - Johnson was the lesser of two evils so if you're "very unfavourable" on Corbyn and "somewhat unfavourable" on Johnson, you hold your nose. Part of that is that you might just like the Conservative Party and think "well, he's a here today, gone tomorrow politician - they'll probably chuck him under a bus in a year or two". Those who took that view were remarkably prescient, whether or not they liked what followed.
    Under FPTP, Conservatives on 42-43% can either be a landslide (1983, 2019) or a hung parliament (2017).

    The difference is what the other 58% do. If they really train their fire on the blue team, with lots of tactical efficiency, the Conservatives are in trouble. If Labour hate the Liberals (2015) or Liberals don't trust Labour (1983, 2019), the Conservatives are on easy street.

    That's I think why net scores are useful. In our system, the extent to which voters of the second and third parties hate each other compared with hating the first party has a huge influence on the results in a given constituency. Forty percent wins against a 30-30 split, but not a 50-10 one.

    And then there's the net (red v blue) net (positive v negative) thing, which might be the best predictor of the lot. Johnson wasn't popular in 2019, just a lot more popular than the alternative.

    Starmer isn't popular in 2024...
    I'd add to that the question of what the other bit of the right wing bloc do. The Tories are on somewhere between 25 and 30% but Reform is polling 10-12%. If that 10-12% hate or distrust the Tories, as might well be the case, then you're getting the same tactical unwind that we saw in 2015 for the Lib Dems. If Reform do very well and bag a couple of seats then that potentially sets up some tactical voting headaches for the Tories in 2028/9.
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197
    TimS said:

    DavidL said:

    viewcode said:

    Viewcode, "The Intermarium", politicalbetting.com, 29Jan2023

    "...When Russia reinvaded Ukraine in 2022, Poland was well placed to go non-linear, and they did. They plan to move defense expenditure to 5% of GDP and went on a spending spree: guns, helicopters, AFVs and tanks. Lots of tanks. All the tanks. The orders they have placed will give them more tanks than UK, France and Germany. Combined..."

    Peter Zeihan, "Poland, After America", Zeihan on Geopolitics, 07Feb2024

    "...the Polish government fast forward plans to expand their tank force uh they cut a deal with the South Koreans and have already imported 180 tanks from Korea stocks uh and there are plans underfoot already in development to manufacture another 800 and some within Poland itself uh when this is finished (and it's supposed to be finished within 3 years) it's not that Poland will have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom or France or Italy or Germany it's that it'll have a more powerful tank force than the United Kingdom and France and Italy and Germany..."

    Poland would slaughter Russia in a fight right now and the imbalance is increasing. But I am not sure that the message of the Ukraine war is that tanks are the way to go...
    The message to me is that air superiority is the only way to go. Otherwise you're back in the Somme. It's been the lack of meaningful aerial impact on either side that's made this war so static and WW1-like.
    Indeed massive losses on both sides for little ground taken so far.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,669
    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Spoiled at the last by the reference to the very appealing back to square one. I've no idea why they persist with this. Is it really doing well in focus groups?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,477
    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    The obvious basis for that is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection.

    Much as I'd like to see him kicked off the ballot, it ain't happening.
    I don't think they'll do it on the basis of lack of a conviction.

    The 14th amendment makes absolutely no reference to conviction, and there is no specific offence of insurrection. So that would go well beyond the natural wording (in a way conservatve justices won't be keen on at all - the drafting cound have said "convicted of" but didn't, it said "engaged in"). It would also go beyond the original intent at the time of post-Civil War reconstruction.

    It also begs too many questions - in particular, it leaves the question hanging of whether a conviction in upcoming trials would do it.

    I think Colorado will certainly lose (even Kagan, a liberal justice, sounded a bit sceptical in the bit I heard, and Roberts and Kavanaugh certainly were - albeit they all need to challenge counsel). But not on those grounds, I suspect.
    Those that were barred under the 14th amendment were not convicted because, as a generality, those who fought for the South were not prosecuted. The conviction argument is plainly rubbish unless the court is desperate to find a way out.

    The suggestion that this could be decided once and if he were elected strikes me as a more credible way forward albeit a clear and egregious derogation of duty inviting possible chaos. It would also put the court in a deeply invidious position if he were to win the election but then denied the right to serve. Not saying they won't but it would be a very poor resolution of the case.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    TimS said:

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    Whilst I see some reason for that, it has some problems.

    In particular, people who aren't going to vote for your party might or might not vote at all, or might decide to waste their vote. They are less likely to do that if they really hate you than if they are ambivalent.

    I'd also note that quite a few people who voted Conservative had unfavourable views of Johnson. Part of that was Corbyn - Johnson was the lesser of two evils so if you're "very unfavourable" on Corbyn and "somewhat unfavourable" on Johnson, you hold your nose. Part of that is that you might just like the Conservative Party and think "well, he's a here today, gone tomorrow politician - they'll probably chuck him under a bus in a year or two". Those who took that view were remarkably prescient, whether or not they liked what followed.
    Under FPTP, Conservatives on 42-43% can either be a landslide (1983, 2019) or a hung parliament (2017).

    The difference is what the other 58% do. If they really train their fire on the blue team, with lots of tactical efficiency, the Conservatives are in trouble. If Labour hate the Liberals (2015) or Liberals don't trust Labour (1983, 2019), the Conservatives are on easy street.

    That's I think why net scores are useful. In our system, the extent to which voters of the second and third parties hate each other compared with hating the first party has a huge influence on the results in a given constituency. Forty percent wins against a 30-30 split, but not a 50-10 one.

    And then there's the net (red v blue) net (positive v negative) thing, which might be the best predictor of the lot. Johnson wasn't popular in 2019, just a lot more popular than the alternative.

    Starmer isn't popular in 2024...
    I'd add to that the question of what the other bit of the right wing bloc do. The Tories are on somewhere between 25 and 30% but Reform is polling 10-12%. If that 10-12% hate or distrust the Tories, as might well be the case, then you're getting the same tactical unwind that we saw in 2015 for the Lib Dems. If Reform do very well and bag a couple of seats then that potentially sets up some tactical voting headaches for the Tories in 2028/9.
    The Right has three blocs from what I can see, Tory loyalists, Reform and Tory stay at homes. Stay at homes are 5%+. ?
    AS someone put a week ago a December election might be Sunaks best chance if the weather can even up the stay at homes.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,385
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
    Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.

    Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work)
    Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
    With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.

    Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
    Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    TimS said:

    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Spoiled at the last by the reference to the very appealing back to square one. I've no idea why they persist with this. Is it really doing well in focus groups?
    I do like the inveterate invertebrate though. That is a lovely phrase.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Spoiled at the last by the reference to the very appealing back to square one. I've no idea why they persist with this. Is it really doing well in focus groups?
    I do like the inveterate invertebrate though. That is a lovely phrase.
    But enough about Rishi...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Yes, gun to head in the Strongman raffle I think I'd just slightly rather pick Erdy than Orby.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    Football tries to emulate rugby in terms of player behaviour, but gets it wrong in their own special way.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/02/08/blue-cards-to-be-introduced-for-football-sin-bins/

    Just give them a sin bin for a yellow card, and introduce the rule of only the captain talking to the ref.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565
    edited February 8
    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    I don't wanna look like some kind of fool
    I don't wanna break my heart over you
    I'm building a wall
    Every day it's getting higher
    This time I won't end up another victim of Gove
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
    Time-shifting is a common symptom of dementia and is different from just being forgetful or mixing things up.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,743
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Spoiled at the last by the reference to the very appealing back to square one. I've no idea why they persist with this. Is it really doing well in focus groups?
    I do like the inveterate invertebrate though. That is a lovely phrase.
    It is, though Gove's firmity of purpose is questionable, especially since he's been at Levelling Up.

    Remember how he first burst onto the public consciousness as a satirical young fogey. Channel 4, A Stab in the Dark or something like that? It would be interesting to see him return to that role, at least briefly.

    (But who is Back To Square One appealing to, apart from ministers who hate the thought that their legacy is destined for the bin? Undoing the last decade or so would go down a treat with most, I suspect.)
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,924
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Spoiled at the last by the reference to the very appealing back to square one. I've no idea why they persist with this. Is it really doing well in focus groups?
    I do like the inveterate invertebrate though. That is a lovely phrase.
    Really? It's the sort of phrase I'd type out, feel smug at my cleverness for a moment before realising it actually makes me sound like a dick, and then delete.

    Am slightly surprised his heart is still in it though, so fair play to him. A non-zero chance of him becoming leader in future, I guess. Assuming he hangs on to his seat (he ought to).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,673
    Sandpit said:

    Football tries to emulate rugby in terms of player behaviour, but gets it wrong in their own special way.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/02/08/blue-cards-to-be-introduced-for-football-sin-bins/

    Just give them a sin bin for a yellow card, and introduce the rule of only the captain talking to the ref.

    If yellows were given for dissent as its deemed in rugby or cricket there'd initially be a few 7 a side matches, but players would soon learn.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
    Time-shifting is a common symptom of dementia and is different from just being forgetful or mixing things up.
    Neither Biden nor Trump should be in this race, theyre too old.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,712
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    And Keir, with a similar net but poorer gross, is on for an even bigger one. So ... ??
    Poorer net & gross.

    So fewer people like him is all we can say for sure I suppose.

    Bet on low turnout? Not with me though, I’m not inviting your double crossing, snideyness back
    Meow!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
    Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.

    Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work)
    Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
    With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.

    Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
    Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
    Yet the local population is one of the happiest in the world, and the city in which I live is probably the most diverse city in the world. I worked for a company that employed 192 different nationalities.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,591
    On Topic

    I have managed to hijack TSEs account for the header ie

    WHY KEIR STARMER IS THE NEW BORIS JOHNSON

    My sub header was Both lying charlatans with no principles or values

    TSE has hijacked it back with the bollocks below the header trying to prove SKS is popular

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    And Keir, with a similar net but poorer gross, is on for an even bigger one. So ... ??
    Poorer net & gross.

    So fewer people like him is all we can say for sure I suppose.

    Bet on low turnout? Not with me though, I’m not inviting your double crossing, snideyness back
    We're talking again! 🤝 🙂

    No, no more kuntibula/eyesam betting. Lessons learnt mutually there.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    edited February 8

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    And Keir, with a similar net but poorer gross, is on for an even bigger one. So ... ??
    Poorer net & gross.

    So fewer people like him is all we can say for sure I suppose.

    Bet on low turnout? Not with me though, I’m not inviting your double crossing, snideyness back
    Meow!
    The words I’d use in real life would warrant my 301st ban, that’s for sure
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    Starmer choses the day the Greenies announce the hottest year to eliminate his Green plans.

    His timings as bad as Sunaks.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,570
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    And Keir, with a similar net but poorer gross, is on for an even bigger one. So ... ??
    Poorer net & gross.

    So fewer people like him is all we can say for sure I suppose.

    Bet on low turnout? Not with me though, I’m not inviting your double crossing, snideyness back
    We're talking again! 🤝 🙂

    No, no more kuntibula/eyesam betting. Lessons learnt mutually there.
    Pffft, I wouldn’t want you to think there was any generosity of spirit from me, I think the way you behaved over that bet is a disgrace
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,712
    Ghedebrav said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Spoiled at the last by the reference to the very appealing back to square one. I've no idea why they persist with this. Is it really doing well in focus groups?
    I do like the inveterate invertebrate though. That is a lovely phrase.
    Really? It's the sort of phrase I'd type out, feel smug at my cleverness for a moment before realising it actually makes me sound like a dick, and then delete.

    Am slightly surprised his heart is still in it though, so fair play to him. A non-zero chance of him becoming leader in future, I guess. Assuming he hangs on to his seat (he ought to).
    It's very Oxford Union. Gove is a bit of a throwback to an earlier vintage of politician.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
    Time-shifting is a common symptom of dementia and is different from just being forgetful or mixing things up.
    Neither Biden nor Trump should be in this race, theyre too old.
    Lizzie was 96! Should she have retired?
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, minus the typos

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years, perhaps with some in-work benefits, and then they claim a pension for 30 years, they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect on the public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.

    This is of course totally incompatible with modern “human rights” legislation, and the inability to seemingly be able to deport anyone anywhere that results from it.
    Nothing to do with human rights, these are government choices. We do actually run similar visa schemes of various temporary durations in certain sectors already, so it happens and the liberal lefties aren't moaning about it as you fear. If the government wanted to offer them more widely it can.

    Seasonal Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Government Authorised Exchange visa (Temporary Work)
    Creative Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Religious Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    Charity Worker visa (Temporary Work)
    International Agreement visa (Temporary Work)
    With the posible exception of the first of these, which is aimed at farm workers, anyone who can claim evidence of a ‘right to a family life’ can get legal aid to sue the government, with almost unlimited appeals and almost unlimited NGOs wanting to assist them.

    Where I live, if you’re ordered to be deported then you’re held in custody and put on the next available plane, and if you wish to appeal then it’s done at your own expense and from overseas.
    Where you live the idea of a overriding human right is none existent. You are governed by the whims of an monarch drawn from dynastic families. Free expression and assembly is criminalised, you could be arbitrarily detained and same sex relationships are illegal.
    Yet the local population is one of the happiest in the world, and the city in which I live is probably the most diverse city in the world. I worked for a company that employed 192 different nationalities.
    Indeed in many cases dictatorships provide superior governance.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    isam said:

    Gove is getting nasty

    Brave Sir Keir runs away again. The inveterate invertebrate shows he has no plan & there is no principle he won’t ditch. He’s the jellyfish of politics - transparent, spineless & swept along by the tide. Far from taking Britain forward, Labour would take us back to Square One

    https://x.com/michaelgove/status/1755603834746073560?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The problem is, the way things have gone since 2016, 'Square One' would be a welcome improvement... :)
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,333
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    Surely not? Even by their low standards that would be a ruling of absolute lunacy.

    I mean, does that imply that should a 33 year old decide to run, they can wait until later to be actually elected? No president for two years? Or the Veep as Acting President?

    I suspect they will find that the amendment does apply to the presidency but the courts were wrong about Trump being an insurrectionist.

    Except Thomas, who will claim it doesn't apply to Trump because Mrs Thomas told him it shouldn't it requires legislation to enforce despite such legislation not having been needed before.
    That isn’t what their arguments suggested. The concerns they appeared to raise was that a state did not have the power to restrict access to the ballot for such a candidate, ostensibly because it was a national matter.

    If they do rule that way, though, it raises the question of what happens if this all isn’t theoretical - I.e, if Trump is permitted to contest and is elected.

    They are punting because they don’t want to make the determination. Hopefully the election will come along and save them from having to wade into that, will be the way they’ll see it
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A few on topic points.

    Firstly, Ipsos MORI gave Johnson the worst ratings just before the 2019 election. Deltapoll actually had him at +2% net favourable, but around -10% was more typical than the Ipsos number. So he wasn't "popular" net but was probably in a better place than the quoted poll indicated. Although it should be noted Ipsos just seem a bit harsher on favourability polls generally - neither Sunak nor Starmer would be as deep in the red with another pollster probably.

    Secondly, Johnson broadly divided opinion in the right way for the Conservatives as he was popular with Leavers and unpopular with Remainers - but the Leavers were in key targets while the Remainers were either in big cities (where Tories had few targets) or in the commuter belt (where Lib Dems did okay but from such a low base it didn't deliver seats - the Home Counties held their nose basically).

    Thirdly, polls that offered "very favourable" and "somewhat favourable" had quite a lot of people saying "very". That tends to drive turnout. Underneath the Johnson numbers were quite a lot of people who thought he was great (and quite a few who loathed him) whereas a lot of people have pretty mild views either way on Starmer. I am not sure if that puts Starmer in a better or worse position - but it isn't broadly the same position as those numbers may indicate.

    That’s why I prefer gross positives; so what if people who aren’t going to vote for your party really, really don’t like you? Boris won a huge majority with that net rating
    And Keir, with a similar net but poorer gross, is on for an even bigger one. So ... ??
    Poorer net & gross.

    So fewer people like him is all we can say for sure I suppose.

    Bet on low turnout? Not with me though, I’m not inviting your double crossing, snideyness back
    We're talking again! 🤝 🙂

    No, no more kuntibula/eyesam betting. Lessons learnt mutually there.
    Pffft, I wouldn’t want you to think there was any generosity of spirit from me, I think the way you behaved over that bet is a disgrace
    It's ok. Time is the best healer with this sort of spat and it's only been a few weeks. I'm confident we'll be good as new by the summer.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
    Time-shifting is a common symptom of dementia and is different from just being forgetful or mixing things up.
    Neither Biden nor Trump should be in this race, theyre too old.
    Lizzie was 96! Should she have retired?
    Yes, she deserved to put her feet up and have some time for herself. Queen Margarethe called it right.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,591
    One that even SKS fans must surely find funny

    https://twitter.com/Agitate4Change/status/1755629788314599717
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
    He's harking back to a better time. Many will empathise.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,366
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
    He's harking back to a better time. Many will empathise.
    I wouldnt see the Soviet Union fuelled cold war as better times.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @Dura_Ace posted a link to this story on the previous thread but I'm not sure it registered. Following on from his gaffe about meeting Mitterrand at the G7, he's now been referring to Helmut Kohl.

    These are not just mix-ups but signs that he doesn't know what decade it is. He's simply not a viable candidate for four more years as president.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday twice referred to the late German chancellor Helmut Kohl instead of former Chancellor Angela Merkel while detailing a 2021 conversation at campaign events.

    It was the second time this week that Biden had recalled speaking with a European leader who had died years earlier.

    He has the right country though. Trump thinks Orban runs Turkey.
    Orban;Erdogan … easily mixed up.

    Both shits, though Erdogan an ever so slightly less unreliable ally. With slightly more justification for his delusions of grandeur.
    Though they do have the advantage that they are both still alive. Mitterrand and Kohl not so much.
    Time-shifting is a common symptom of dementia and is different from just being forgetful or mixing things up.
    Neither Biden nor Trump should be in this race, theyre too old.
    Age is the least of it with one of them though. That's the essential difference.
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 435
    Yes, I'm sure that "all the oil barons and climate skeptics" in the Labour party will be most annoyed by that.


  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,075
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Football tries to emulate rugby in terms of player behaviour, but gets it wrong in their own special way.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/02/08/blue-cards-to-be-introduced-for-football-sin-bins/

    Just give them a sin bin for a yellow card, and introduce the rule of only the captain talking to the ref.

    If yellows were given for dissent as its deemed in rugby or cricket there'd initially be a few 7 a side matches, but players would soon learn.
    It is obvious that top English football is the way it is - cheating, dissent, scatological conduct by crowds and players, intimidation and all that - because that is the way significant footballing and commercial interests want it to be. If they wanted to play the game in the style and values of rugby, village cricket and bowls clubs it could be achieved in days. They don't want to. The current style makes billions for some.
This discussion has been closed.