The freshman senator is considered a rising star in the party. But her speech’s intense tone—with an over-the-top dramatic cadence that was delivered in a kitchen—left political operatives and observers struggling to make sense of it.
The performance was so bad that some Republicans watched the high-profile speech with a grimace.
A GOP strategist told The Daily Beast that Britt’s delivery quickly became a gossip item Thursday night among operatives connected to Donald Trump—something that could have potential implications for her consideration as a vice presidential pick on the 2024 ticket.
“Everyone’s fucking losing it,” this Republican said, requesting anonymity to discuss private conversations. “It’s one of our biggest disasters ever.”
“No one was surprised that [Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell’s handpicked senator resonated so poorly with the base,” said a source close to Trump, who requested anonymity for similar reasons. (Britt is a favorite of McConnell, which has made Trumpworld suspicious.)
“But her performance was the stuff of nightmares and people were surprised by that,” they continued.
This Republican said it is still unknown how the performance will affect Britt’s VP stock, but noted that Trump definitely watched the coverage of it and it “isn’t going to help.”
Several popular social media influencers in the MAGA camp also panned the speech; the account Catturd tweeted Britt was "awful" to his 2.4 million followers...
The GOP has been enshittified by loyalty tests, conspiracy theories and fascism. It is no surprise that their hand-picked rising star is hopeless.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
I've read that modern cars are getting bigger, but that's ridiculous. It dwarfs the house.
I can see niches for it.
Eg a walking or climbing weekend. Traditionally one would take a car full of stuff and a tent or two tents, which have to be put up and left at the campsite.
That rooftop tent puts up in 60 seconds, takes down in 120 seconds, and is a small 8-12" deep roof box when folded down. Saves time for climbing or walking, and nothing is left behind during the day outside the vehicle.
If you have a thing like a Citroen Berlingo (rather than an LR tonka-tanker) the inside height is ~1.25m so you can sit inside (men - just, women - more comfortably) around a fold-up table, and drink tea or eat lunch or play poker.
There are things called "boot jumps" which are a unit with a foldup double bed, storage, cook-space, which form 2 pairs of seats each side with a centre table, and fit in the boot, So with one of those and a roof tent you can take 4 people, eat in the warm vehicle, and sleep 2 inside and 2 in the roof tent - the latter works because vehicles now have to roll-over resilient. They just slot in.
And all at the cost of about 4-5% of that of a caravan, and to normal driving regulations, so the moth collector in the Gordon Keeble behind does not swear at you all the way from Bristol to Devon.
You can use smaller campsite spaces, and if one or two-up benefit if they charge per person. I'm intrigued.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
It wasn’t the “voters” either
The voters didn't get rid of Thatcher or Johnson at a General Election. But they had a pretty big role.
Losing the Eastbourne by-election certainly helped precipitate the challenge to Thatcher and to convince enough colleagues she wouldn't be able to turnit around for a fourth win. And would Johnson have ridden out the Pincher nonsense had he held on to Tiverton & Honiton and Wakefield a few days earlier? I think he probably would.
Tory MPs didn't just ditch them on a whim or because of a particular misstep. MPs forgive rather a lot if you're a winner - rather less if that aura has gone.
Yep. It's just that then came Truss. Johnson's rep benefits from that on the 'all is relative' ticket.
Benefits unfairly since he made 'her' possible and indeed backed her. Why? Probably for the same reason he made 'up periscope' Simon Clarke number two to the midget gem at the Treasury.
But maybe that's just a Hater talking. Probably is.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
Was it Churchill who said the MPs on the other side of the chamber are the opposition and the MP's behind you are your enemys?
Jim Hacker, though he probably nicked it because it sounds like it could have been around for centuries.
The first time I heard it phrased that way was from Diane Abbott, although the way she said it makes me think it had been around a while. I don't recall that phrasing from Yes Minister, although happy to be contradicted.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
The difference is that Thatcher had been in power for over decade and her removal caused more long-term internal party issues than it did electoral issues.
In contrast the idea that Johnson was electorally dispensable was pure hubris.
Au contraire. It just shows how much he pissed them off that they ditched him anyway.
Imagine something being so morally repugnant that even the Tory Party can't stomach it. That's quite some strong sauce.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
Disagree.
My hunch is that a lot of people are impressed with Boris on first encounter- enough, say, to get him over the top in London in 2008. Because the good fairy gave him the Boris Charisma, which is very real.
Unfortunately, the bad fairy made him an utter shit- see the aphorism that the world is divided into people Boris has betrayed and people he will betray in the future.
So he keeps getting the jobs, girls and victories. But then he keeps losing them. Because charisma can get you the first date, but it doesn't work with living with someone for life.
His approach to the Premiership was the same. Which is why he was turfed out. MPs had had enough of trying to defend him.
I never liked Johnson even when he was supposedly a liberal Mayor of London and my kind of person. The reason is banal. I'll forgive a lot of someone who makes me laugh but I never found him funny. Too false. If you play for laughs and people don't find you funny, you have nothing left. Somehow I seem to have discovered Jonson wearing no clothes before much of the public. But now they have seen him naked it's difficult not sure how he can make them unseen that.
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
I've read that modern cars are getting bigger, but that's ridiculous. It dwarfs the house.
I can see niches for it.
Eg a walking or climbing weekend. Traditionally one would take a car full of stuff and a tent or two tents, which have to be put up and left at the campsite.
That rooftop tent puts up in 60 seconds, takes down in 120 seconds, and is a small 8-12" deep roof box when folded down. Saves time for climbing or walking, and nothing is left behind during the day outside the vehicle.
If you have a thing like a Citroen Berlingo (rather than an LR tonka-tanker) the inside height is ~1.25m so you can sit inside (men - just, women - more comfortably) around a fold-up table, and drink tea or eat lunch or play poker.
There are things called "boot jumps" which are a unit with a foldup double bed, storage, cook-space, which form 2 pairs of seats each side with a centre table, and fit in the boot, So with one of those and a roof tent you can take 4 people, eat in the warm vehicle, and sleep 2 inside and 2 in the roof tent - the latter works because vehicles now have to roll-over resilient. They just slot in.
And all at the cost of about 4-5% of that of a caravan, and to normal driving regulations, so the moth collector in the vehicle behind does not swear at you all the way from Bristol to Devon.
You can use smaller campsite spaces, and if one or two-up benefit if they charge per person. I'm intrigued.
Many moons ago, I spent a night at a campsite in the Peak District. I was backpacking and had a tiny tent; a couple pulled up in the pitch next to me. They got out, and the man put up a large tent. They then drove off to the pub. A couple of hours later the man returned, picked up some bags, and drove off. They both returned the next morning, having spent the night in a much comfier bed!
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
My Dad voted enthusiastically for him and hates him now
My Dad lives in the US and is voting for Biden. He was a Liberal in the UK, having worked on the Abortion Act with David Steel. I don’t think this tells us anything useful about political trends: I just wanted to join in.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It's a (respectable) view but "much" really is hoisting some weight there.
My opinion? On the counterfactual he's still in place he'll do 25 seats better than Rishi is going to manage. Neither transformational nor to be sniffed at.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
It's the same sort of question as What would have happened if Blair had said 'No' to Iraq, Afghanistan etc, as Wilson said No to Viet Nam.
Cameron leaving in 2016, like Blair going into Iraq, constituted the act by which they betrayed themselves. When we needed the grown up in the room Cameron had vanished.
The really big calls, at this level, are the ones which count. PMs have information and sources we don't. We trust them. For Cameron to promote a referendum where his own MPs and party members were free to act on the side they supported when privately he could only carry on with one of only two possible results was catastrophic. Many moderates voted, even if reluctantly, for Brexit on the basis that neither choice was optimal, but Cameron knew what he was doing and had a plan for both outcomes. They were let down. He can't recover fully, despite his many virtues. Blair ditto.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned blu-tacked on the front?
For Liz & Rishi's sake. Those lecturns cost a fortune you know.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
They're both poor copies of Blair in their own way. Cameron tried to be Blair with more panache, and Sunak is trying to be Blair with less cynicism.
Tony Blair has taken personal control of asylum policy and is considering proposals to mobilise Royal Navy warships to intercept people traffickers in the Mediterranean and carry out bulk deportations in RAF transport planes, according to a Downing Street document passed to the Guardian.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
How dare you forget George Galloway. A man of principle. Almost as many as Groucho.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
Layla Moran has been good too.
Layla Moran should not be in parliament. If a male MP had done what she had done, they would have been forced to leave.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
Layla Moran has been good too.
The problem for her is she does not receive the publicity and media exposure Cameron does as Foreign Secretary
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
How dare you forget George Galloway. A man of principle. Almost as many as Groucho.
Cameron rises above one sided arguments and is even handed in his criticism of Isreal and Hamas
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
We can't be certain - define "much better shape" for example. I agree it's hard to think they could or would be in worse shape. I remember knocking on doors in 1989 and 1990 and the "TBW" factor was at work even in solid suburban Conservative seats. For the youngsters on here, TBW stood for That Bloody Woman - there were Conservatives who would not vote Conservative while Thatcher was leader.
Would we now have the TBM factor? I don't know whether those Conservatives who would refuse to support the party while Boris Johnson was leader would outnumber those who would only vote Conservative if he was still leader. There is a vocal minority who continue to adore Johnson and would vote for any party he led (even and especially Reform for example in a way they wouldn't for Farage). Yet if you talk to disaffected Conservatives they usually start with Johnson before Truss or Sunak.
A lot of it is or was expectation - the 2019 Conservative vote wasn't just about Brexit but also signed up to the upbeat Johnson message of cheery optimism and the huge promises of change especially via "levelling up". Whether through Covid or Ukraine or other factors, the sense of disappointment and the anger that has prompted and the betrayal more recent decisions such as over HS2 has engendered has created a storm of negativity towards the Conservatives which, I suspect, no amount of budget bribery will temper.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
My Dad voted enthusiastically for him and hates him now
My Dad lives in the US and is voting for Biden. He was a Liberal in the UK, having worked on the Abortion Act with David Steel. I don’t think this tells us anything useful about political trends: I just wanted to join in.
I know somebody in Los Angeles who will definitely vote for Biden. Does that help?
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It's a (respectable) view but "much" really is hoisting some weight there.
My opinion? On the counterfactual he's still in place he'll do 25 seats better than Rishi is going to manage. Neither transformational nor to be sniffed at.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
And speaking of which, NO₂ levels in London have fallen 49% since 2016.
Not all of that is down to ULEZ, of course - there are many causes of the move away from diesel engines, but the fall in England as a whole was only 35%, which strongly suggests that ULEZ is having the intended effect.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
Boris resigned. He was not toppled by process. If it was a mistake for him to resign, you need to be able to show how he could have carried on in government at all while not resigning, having for overwhelming reasons lost the confidence of more or less all his able MPs. Losing their confidence was 100% a matter of doing things each of which any proper leader with ordinary self control and common sense would not have done. Your issue does not arise. he would still be PM if he had acted like one.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
How dare you forget George Galloway. A man of principle. Almost as many as Groucho.
Cameron rises above one sided arguments and is even handed in his criticism of Isreal and Hamas
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
And speaking of which, NO₂ levels in London have fallen 49% since 2016.
Not all of that is down to ULEZ, of course - there are many causes of the move away from diesel engines, but the fall in England as a whole was only 35%, which strongly suggests that ULEZ is having the intended effect.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
And speaking of which, NO₂ levels in London have fallen 49% since 2016.
Not all of that is down to ULEZ, of course - there are many causes of the move away from diesel engines, but the fall in England as a whole was only 35%, which strongly suggests that ULEZ is having the intended effect.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Because they are societies built on genocide, violence and exploitation and are the most unequal places on the planet?
Several theories pertain. In theory Argentina and Brazil should be insanely rich but are not. The YouTube edgelord WhatIfAltHist says it's due to Catholic culture and lack of work ethic. Others point to exploitation colonies Vs settler colonies, or being ruled by third sons with no inheritance. Still others point to endemic corruption or US interference. Pick whichever floats your boat.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
What sort of thing or reason would count for you as an answer to the question? So: Would 'because they are all excitable hotheads' or 'because it's full of cokeheads' or 'because they have not fully absorbed the values imbibed by playing cricket' do?
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Because they are societies built on genocide, violence and exploitation and are the most unequal places on the planet?
Mainly true but there are lots of places like that on the world. Africa is full of them. And yet Nowhere in Africa is as dangerous as the worse bits of Latin America
There seems to be an Iberian link. By far the most dangerous place in south east Asia is the Phillipines. The only ex Spanish colony
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
What sort of thing or reason would count for you as an answer to the question? So: Would 'because they are all excitable hotheads' or 'because it's full of cokeheads' or 'because they have not fully absorbed the values imbibed by playing cricket' do?
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Because they are societies built on genocide, violence and exploitation and are the most unequal places on the planet?
Nope.
South America is a soap opera. Watch an episode of Dallas, then the news from Venezuela or Argentina.
Milei is obviously a 9th season, mix it up character. Audience falling off - mad character no-one previously mentioned takes over. 52 card pickup ensues.......
If you look at what I have just posted, one finding was that LTNs take some months to bed in before things settle doen and the improvements appear.
In any case, one defective project - if it continues to be defective - doesn't discredit them all.
The Mail last Saturday had a two-page piece decrying one such LTN. They pointed out the vacant shops but when they spoke to the owners of the shops still there some did blame the parking situation but others blamed the cost of living and other non-LTN factors such as rent rises. The idea the demise of retail is the fault of Labour councils introducing low traffic neightbourhoods is another of the Mail's silly scare stories.
In Newham, we don't have LTNs but the council are imposing a 20 MPH limit on all the residential streets. To be honest, with the parked cars, the speed humps and the other vehicles, it's almost impossible to get to 20 MPH.
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Because they are societies built on genocide, violence and exploitation and are the most unequal places on the planet?
Several theories pertain. In theory Argentina and Brazil should be insanely rich but are not. The YouTube edgelord WhatIfAltHist says it's due to Catholic culture and lack of work ethic. Others point to exploitation colonies Vs settler colonies, or being ruled by third sons with no inheritance. Still others point to endemic corruption or US interference. Pick whichever floats your boat.
Exactly. Its a fascinating and complex question which gets more interesting (and complex) the deeper you dig
Colombia is a magnificently blessed country in terms of climate and landscape and resources and everything. Its huge and fertile with glorious coastlines and fecund valleys
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Because they are societies built on genocide, violence and exploitation and are the most unequal places on the planet?
Mainly true but there are lots of places like that on the world. Africa is full of them. And yet Nowhere in Africa is as dangerous as the worse bits of Latin America
There seems to be an Iberian link. By far the most dangerous place in south east Asia is the Phillipines. The only ex Spanish colony
The Spaniards were especially vile colonialists. My theory is that the most violent countries are failed colonial adventures. They have to put down total roots, otherwise they just fuck with what was there already, and create massive inequality because they are built on pure exploitation, treating either native people or others brought in for the purpose as pure commodities. They also tend to be built around a single cash crop and so very economically unstable. There's usually a legacy of horrific violence too. Latin America suffers from proximity to the US and its gang and gun culture, too. The US deports the most violent people back.
F1 - Interesting how all conquering Red Bull are hitting the self destruct button...
Yes, rumours Marko's being investigated now for comments made to the media. Also, *rumours* he was banned from talking to the media, then talked to Sky.
I really, really hope this is true, as it would be hilarious.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Partly the drugs trade, partly exceptionally corrupt and incompetent law enforcement, partly easy availability of firearms. All three factors feed off each other, of course.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
What sort of thing or reason would count for you as an answer to the question? So: Would 'because they are all excitable hotheads' or 'because it's full of cokeheads' or 'because they have not fully absorbed the values imbibed by playing cricket' do?
Any answer. I’m profoundly intrigued
'Latin America' is a very big term. Generalisations are dangerous. On the whole to understand why community X has characteristics Y the issues to look at are based on the fact that people are, despite appearances, mostly rational but the way it is exercised is subject to constraints and opportunities.
Take a well known example: Why is there so much violence in the drugs trade? Answer: Because you can't resolve your trade disputes either by going to the police or the civil courts, so you have to do it the old way.
Why do Americans carry guns? Because the other bloke does.
Why did people rob banks when they carried lots of cash? Because that's where the free money is.
Find a thread and follow it. Communities are internally but not externally coherent. It's anthropology.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Because they are societies built on genocide, violence and exploitation and are the most unequal places on the planet?
Mainly true but there are lots of places like that on the world. Africa is full of them. And yet Nowhere in Africa is as dangerous as the worse bits of Latin America
There seems to be an Iberian link. By far the most dangerous place in south east Asia is the Phillipines. The only ex Spanish colony
The Spaniards were especially vile colonialists. My theory is that the most violent countries are failed colonial adventures. They have to put down total roots, otherwise they just fuck with what was there already, and create massive inequality because they are built on pure exploitation, treating either native people or others brought in for the purpose as pure commodities. They also tend to be built around a single cash crop and so very economically unstable. There's usually a legacy of horrific violence too. Latin America suffers from proximity to the US and its gang and gun culture, too. The US deports the most violent people back.
Good points. Yes
The Portuguese were also absolutely brutal. They had to be as a tiny country - their only hope of winning an empire was outrageous aggression and cruelty. Which they enacted
Im in central Medellin now and this is simply a place you don’t want to be. Horrific
F1 - Interesting how all conquering Red Bull are hitting the self destruct button...
Yes, rumours Marko's being investigated now for comments made to the media. Also, *rumours* he was banned from talking to the media, then talked to Sky.
I really, really hope this is true, as it would be hilarious.
Shame it doesn't look like Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton have the package to take advantage of Red Bulls woes
If you look at what I have just posted, one finding was that LTNs take some months to bed in before things settle doen and the improvements appear.
In any case, one defective project - if it continues to be defective - doesn't discredit them all.
To be fair I wasn't suggesting that and as far as I am aware we do not have any locally anyway
You live in an LTN yourself.
LTNs have been around for decades and the risk with a report like that was through-routes would be retrofitted to residential areas that have had filters in place since the 1970s.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
Because they are societies built on genocide, violence and exploitation and are the most unequal places on the planet?
Mainly true but there are lots of places like that on the world. Africa is full of them. And yet Nowhere in Africa is as dangerous as the worse bits of Latin America
There seems to be an Iberian link. By far the most dangerous place in south east Asia is the Phillipines. The only ex Spanish colony
The Spaniards were especially vile colonialists. My theory is that the most violent countries are failed colonial adventures. They have to put down total roots, otherwise they just fuck with what was there already, and create massive inequality because they are built on pure exploitation, treating either native people or others brought in for the purpose as pure commodities. They also tend to be built around a single cash crop and so very economically unstable. There's usually a legacy of horrific violence too. Latin America suffers from proximity to the US and its gang and gun culture, too. The US deports the most violent people back.
Good points. Yes
The Portuguese were also absolutely brutal. They had to be as a tiny country - their only hope of winning an empire was outrageous aggression and cruelty. Which they enacted
Im in central Medellin now and this is simply a place you don’t want to be. Horrific
How have the ex-Belgian colonies fared? Congo and Rwanda not well.
Why is Latin America so insanely dangerous? Does anyone have any theories?
What sort of thing or reason would count for you as an answer to the question? So: Would 'because they are all excitable hotheads' or 'because it's full of cokeheads' or 'because they have not fully absorbed the values imbibed by playing cricket' do?
Any answer. I’m profoundly intrigued
'Latin America' is a very big term. Generalisations are dangerous. On the whole to understand why community X has characteristics Y the issues to look at are based on the fact that people are, despite appearances, mostly rational but the way it is exercised is subject to constraints and opportunities.
Take a well known example: Why is there so much violence in the drugs trade? Answer: Because you can't resolve your trade disputes either by going to the police or the civil courts, so you have to do it the old way.
Why do Americans carry guns? Because the other bloke does.
Why did people rob banks when they carried lots of cash? Because that's where the free money is.
Find a thread and follow it. Communities are internally but not externally coherent. It's anthropology.
There are common themes - in much of Latin America, the leaders of Independence and after were dictators, who set the pattern of Strongman rulers.
I agree with George III that one of the most impressive things Washington did was walking away.
If you look at what I have just posted, one finding was that LTNs take some months to bed in before things settle doen and the improvements appear.
In any case, one defective project - if it continues to be defective - doesn't discredit them all.
To be fair I wasn't suggesting that and as far as I am aware we do not have any locally anyway
You live in an LTN yourself.
LTNs have been around for decades and the risk with a report like that was through-routes would be retrofitted to residential areas that have had filters in place since the 1970s.
If you look at what I have just posted, one finding was that LTNs take some months to bed in before things settle doen and the improvements appear.
In any case, one defective project - if it continues to be defective - doesn't discredit them all.
Sounds like they have suspended it to facilitate the construction of yet another segregated cycle lane. London really is a decade or two ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to public transport and cycling.
I like to moan about a lack of investment in the north but it does appear that local government in London is just a lot more ambitious and effective.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
If you look at what I have just posted, one finding was that LTNs take some months to bed in before things settle doen and the improvements appear.
In any case, one defective project - if it continues to be defective - doesn't discredit them all.
To be fair I wasn't suggesting that and as far as I am aware we do not have any locally anyway
You live in an LTN yourself.
LTNs have been around for decades and the risk with a report like that was through-routes would be retrofitted to residential areas that have had filters in place since the 1970s.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Weren’t the mortgage rates Truss & Kwarteng’s doing?
They went up a little more than would have been the case, but the fundamental issue that the developed world has had is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine pushed energy prices up.
This in turn meant inflation was higher.
Which meant Central Banks raised interest rates (and therefore mortgage rates) in order to lower inflation.
I can't think of a single developed world government that has survived this with their popularity intact.
It’s strange that no one puts the case that changing governments probably doesn’t make a difference in that scenario
Of course it doesn't.
And whoever is in power when the drag goes into reverse get the benefit, irrespective of their policies.
How come Cambodia is INFINITELY safer and nicer than Colombia when it is easily as unequal as anywhere in South America AND experienced one of the greatest traumas in human history in living memory?
If you look at what I have just posted, one finding was that LTNs take some months to bed in before things settle doen and the improvements appear.
In any case, one defective project - if it continues to be defective - doesn't discredit them all.
Sounds like they have suspended it to facilitate the construction of yet another segregated cycle lane. London really is a decade or two ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to public transport and cycling.
I like to moan about a lack of investment in the north but it does appear that local government in London is just a lot more ambitious and effective.
It's a virtuous circle: because public transport is so (relatively) good in London, you can restrict cars in order to improve public and human-powered transport (not just bikes!). In many other parts of the country, where public transport is not as good, restricting cars can cause other problems.
People need alternatives. And bikes are only a limited alternative.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
Layla Moran has been good too.
Layla Moran should not be in parliament. If a male MP had done what she had done, they would have been forced to leave.
Can't wait for the review into 20mph limits in Wales.
It will be implemented from 2025...
It is already in force and was around schools before the Welsh government mandated all 30mph to be 20mph
The review is on going with changes due to be implemented by no latter than this Autumn by councils across Wales, especially North Wales where councils were far more stringent than in South Wales
I would just say speeds are climbing to near 30mph and there has been no evidence of enforcement around our area other than outside schools
The only really safe country in Latin America is Cuba?
Tho I have heard Costa Rica is pretty cool
That’s a fairly bad track record there. One and a half countries out of 30 odd. With maybe El Salvador hoping to join
Costa Rica is lovely. Not much in the way of historic buildings. The food is fine, if you like rice and beans with every meal, but they have a really positive attitude to the environment, nature and social justice.
It helps that they abolished their army in 1948. In most Latin American countries the Army is an extortion racket, or the storm troopers of the large landowners.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
You make a good point. Can anyone imagine Cameron standing in front of a lectern with 'Stop The Boats' pinned on the front?
David Cameron on Gaza and Ukraine has been outstanding and far away more persuasive and switched on over the plight of those suffering than anyone else in UK politics
Layla Moran has been good too.
Layla Moran should not be in parliament. If a male MP had done what she had done, they would have been forced to leave.
Was she looking at porn on her phone?
Yes, and very skillfully managing to whack her husband black and blue with the Le Creuset skillet at the same time. Multi-tasking.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
Eg this is one of the main historic squares of Medellin. What the photo doesn’t show is that this entire square is full of prostitutes. Some apparently aged about 12
This is at 4.30pm in the afternoon. I’ve come into the church as it is maybe the only place to use my phone without it getting stolen
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
I've read that modern cars are getting bigger, but that's ridiculous. It dwarfs the house.
I can see niches for it.
Eg a walking or climbing weekend. Traditionally one would take a car full of stuff and a tent or two tents, which have to be put up and left at the campsite.
That rooftop tent puts up in 60 seconds, takes down in 120 seconds, and is a small 8-12" deep roof box when folded down. Saves time for climbing or walking, and nothing is left behind during the day outside the vehicle.
If you have a thing like a Citroen Berlingo (rather than an LR tonka-tanker) the inside height is ~1.25m so you can sit inside (men - just, women - more comfortably) around a fold-up table, and drink tea or eat lunch or play poker.
There are things called "boot jumps" which are a unit with a foldup double bed, storage, cook-space, which form 2 pairs of seats each side with a centre table, and fit in the boot, So with one of those and a roof tent you can take 4 people, eat in the warm vehicle, and sleep 2 inside and 2 in the roof tent - the latter works because vehicles now have to roll-over resilient. They just slot in.
And all at the cost of about 4-5% of that of a caravan, and to normal driving regulations, so the moth collector in the Gordon Keeble behind does not swear at you all the way from Bristol to Devon.
You can use smaller campsite spaces, and if one or two-up benefit if they charge per person. I'm intrigued.
Car top camping is very popular in Southern Africa. Safe from animals, snakes and insects, and a bit cooler in hot weather.
Tentbox is quite well insulated and weatherproof, so pretty good to convert a regular car to a camper van. You need two people to lift it on as it's not light, and not all vehicles can take the weight with 2 people on board.
Eg this is one of the main historic squares of Medellin. What the photo doesn’t show is that this entire square is full of prostitutes. Some apparently aged about 12
This is at 4.30pm in the afternoon. I’ve come into the church as it is maybe the only place to use my phone without it getting stolen
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
In WWII, the Americans were landing 25,000 tons on their landing beaches. Directly, not via the Mulberry harbour.
Principally because of the way the Spanish conquered it, partly due to geography, ams partly due to the range of staple foods.
Interesting! Really!
Staple foods is a new one I’ve not heard. How does that work? The potato actually comes from here and now it is eaten around the world and ireland is a lot safer than Peru
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
If polled I would agree Johnson has 'lots of personality' - that's the point of his 'Boris' persona. I wouldn't read too much into the public thinking he is less boring than Starmer as that's self-evident. I wouldn't trust him to look after my dog, let alone the country, and would never vote for him under any circumstances.
But not every voter is a ‘political overthinker, touched by genius’ like so many on PB. They’re not all immune to anything but indestructible logic. Many civvies are likely to be influenced to vote a certain way by a charismatic personality
Hence why Charisma is important in a political leader. Indeed in many other walks of life too. The sweet spot is where it coincides with integrity, vision and competence. Boy that would be a package.
Example? Not many, obviously. If there were many it wouldn't be what it is. Rare.
I was going to offer up RFK - Snr not Jnr - but what about the Monroe episode? That was tawdry.
When I was in my 20s I was pretty obsessed with RFK senior, partly on the back of Schlesinger Robert Kennedy and his times, which is a sublime book but I read much more widely.
To me he was not as clever as his brother but, despite his reputation, nowhere near as cynical either. If he had lived I have no doubt he would have been President in 68 and, in my opinion, a great one too. He really cared about people, especially poor or downtrodden people, in ways his brother frankly didn't. America would have been a radically different country and in my view a much better one.
I have an RFK thing too. I love those clips where he's sticking it to the mobsters. And yes, him in 68 rather than Tricky Dicky, that really is a poignant road not travelled.
I rate LBJ highly too. I'm getting the Caro opus from my dad when he dies. Really looking forward to that. Well the first bit.
LBJ was an extraordinary mixture of the good and the bad. The control freakery and dishonesty, which had served both him and the country well in domestic politics, ended up destroying him (and consequently many others) in Vietnam.
Sadly, I’m not sure we’ll ever get the Caro account of Vietnam.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
In WWII, the Americans were landing 25,000 tons on their landing beaches. Directly, not via the Mulberry harbour.
Per day.
That was after spending several years building up lots of landing craft. Even the modern US Navy. Over 11,000 landing craft were built by the US during ww2. Not all would have been at Normandy, but a lot would - 3,000 on D-Day alone. Besides, landing craft require a permanent military presence on the beach. A pier does not: the military can stand off on the ships once it is constructed, and the UN/aid agencies can drive the trucks up to the ships (*)
Piers are much better IMO.
(*) I do wonder about truck bombs being driven up to the ships, though...
This is a pretty typical street in central Medellin. I was unable to capture images of the many many dtug addicts lying comatose - or actually dead - because the lively ones looked like they wanted to kill me
F1 - Interesting how all conquering Red Bull are hitting the self destruct button...
The attempt by the Austrians to defenestrate Horner has failed and it looks like payback has begun. If what I'm hearing is correct this will ultimately leave the team on a much more secure footing long-term, but possibly without Max.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
Jeremy Hunt was clearly taken aback. While a chancellor always expects challenging questions the morning after delivering the budget, being described as a “fiscal drag queen” came from leftfield. “I haven’t been called that before,” Hunt told his interviewer rather testily.
The charge, however, encapsulates the dilemma facing Hunt and Rishi Sunak as they attempt to sell the spring budget. How do you convince voters you are a tax cutter when the overall tax burden is still on course to rise to the highest level since 1948?
Comments
Eg a walking or climbing weekend. Traditionally one would take a car full of stuff and a tent or two tents, which have to be put up and left at the campsite.
That rooftop tent puts up in 60 seconds, takes down in 120 seconds, and is a small 8-12" deep roof box when folded down. Saves time for climbing or walking, and nothing is left behind during the day outside the vehicle.
If you have a thing like a Citroen Berlingo (rather than an LR tonka-tanker) the inside height is ~1.25m so you can sit inside (men - just, women - more comfortably) around a fold-up table, and drink tea or eat lunch or play poker.
There are things called "boot jumps" which are a unit with a foldup double bed, storage, cook-space, which form 2 pairs of seats each side with a centre table, and fit in the boot, So with one of those and a roof tent you can take 4 people, eat in the warm vehicle, and sleep 2 inside and 2 in the roof tent - the latter works because vehicles now have to roll-over resilient. They just slot in.
And all at the cost of about 4-5% of that of a caravan, and to normal driving regulations, so the moth collector in the Gordon Keeble behind does not swear at you all the way from Bristol to Devon.
You can use smaller campsite spaces, and if one or two-up benefit if they charge per person. I'm intrigued.
Benefits unfairly since he made 'her' possible and indeed backed her. Why? Probably for the same reason he made 'up periscope' Simon Clarke number two to the midget gem at the Treasury.
But maybe that's just a Hater talking. Probably is.
Imagine something being so morally repugnant that even the Tory Party can't stomach it. That's quite some strong sauce.
My opinion? On the counterfactual he's still in place he'll do 25 seats better than Rishi is going to manage. Neither transformational nor to be sniffed at.
Cameron leaving in 2016, like Blair going into Iraq, constituted the act by which they betrayed themselves. When we needed the grown up in the room Cameron had vanished.
The really big calls, at this level, are the ones which count. PMs have information and sources we don't. We trust them. For Cameron to promote a referendum where his own MPs and party members were free to act on the side they supported when privately he could only carry on with one of only two possible results was catastrophic. Many moderates voted, even if reluctantly, for Brexit on the basis that neither choice was optimal, but Cameron knew what he was doing and had a plan for both outcomes. They were let down. He can't recover fully, despite his many virtues. Blair ditto.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/23/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices2
Tony Blair has taken personal control of asylum policy and is considering proposals to mobilise Royal Navy warships to intercept people traffickers in the Mediterranean and carry out bulk deportations in RAF transport planes, according to a Downing Street document passed to the Guardian.
Would we now have the TBM factor? I don't know whether those Conservatives who would refuse to support the party while Boris Johnson was leader would outnumber those who would only vote Conservative if he was still leader. There is a vocal minority who continue to adore Johnson and would vote for any party he led (even and especially Reform for example in a way they wouldn't for Farage). Yet if you talk to disaffected Conservatives they usually start with Johnson before Truss or Sunak.
A lot of it is or was expectation - the 2019 Conservative vote wasn't just about Brexit but also signed up to the upbeat Johnson message of cheery optimism and the huge promises of change especially via "levelling up". Whether through Covid or Ukraine or other factors, the sense of disappointment and the anger that has prompted and the betrayal more recent decisions such as over HS2 has engendered has created a storm of negativity towards the Conservatives which, I suspect, no amount of budget bribery will temper.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/streatham-wells-low-traffic-neighbourhood-scrapped-lambeth-council/
(Stares into the gloom, plots horrible murders)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/health-gains-of-low-traffic-schemes-up-to-100-times-greater-than-costs-study-finds
Of course, if you don't believe in extgernalities it's meaningless.
Why is this humdrum place infamous?
In any case, one defective project - if it continues to be defective - doesn't discredit them all.
There seems to be an Iberian link. By far the most dangerous place in south east Asia is the Phillipines. The only ex Spanish colony
South America is a soap opera. Watch an episode of Dallas, then the news from Venezuela or Argentina.
Milei is obviously a 9th season, mix it up character. Audience falling off - mad character no-one previously mentioned takes over. 52 card pickup ensues.......
In Newham, we don't have LTNs but the council are imposing a 20 MPH limit on all the residential streets. To be honest, with the parked cars, the speed humps and the other vehicles, it's almost impossible to get to 20 MPH.
https://www.williamsclassics.co.uk/vehicles-for-sale/land-rover-90-defender-county-station-wagon-carawagon-1-owner-from-new-c650-dhv/
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
Colombia is a magnificently blessed country in terms of climate and landscape and resources and everything. Its huge and fertile with glorious coastlines and fecund valleys
But it’s still fucked. GDP per capita of $6000!!
It should be $20k-$40k easily
Chile is the one exception?
Can't wait for the review into 20mph limits in Wales.
Latin America suffers from proximity to the US and its gang and gun culture, too. The US deports the most violent people back.
Tho I have heard Costa Rica is pretty cool
That’s a fairly bad track record there. One and a half countries out of 30 odd. With maybe El Salvador hoping to join
I really, really hope this is true, as it would be hilarious.
Some say that was due to the lower population. Which is still effected by the War of 1870.
When that was done, there were so few men left, that the Catholic Church blessed polygamy.....
Some say that 90% of the male population over 15 died.
Take a well known example: Why is there so much violence in the drugs trade? Answer: Because you can't resolve your trade disputes either by going to the police or the civil courts, so you have to do it the old way.
Why do Americans carry guns? Because the other bloke does.
Why did people rob banks when they carried lots of cash? Because that's where the free money is.
Find a thread and follow it. Communities are internally but not externally coherent. It's anthropology.
The Portuguese were also absolutely brutal. They had to be as a tiny country - their only hope of winning an empire was outrageous aggression and cruelty. Which they enacted
Im in central Medellin now and this is simply a place you don’t want to be. Horrific
LTNs have been around for decades and the risk with a report like that was through-routes would be retrofitted to residential areas that have had filters in place since the 1970s.
Even Edinburgh's Georgian New Town has original modal filters. Pompeii too! https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/08/26/uks-low-traffic-neighorhoods-nothing-new-ancient-romans-blocked-city-roads-to-carriages/?sh=354e84c75b60
I agree with George III that one of the most impressive things Washington did was walking away.
I like to moan about a lack of investment in the north but it does appear that local government in London is just a lot more ambitious and effective.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Am I missing something?
(*) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68514467
That's French for "low-traffic neighbourhood". You can't drive through down your street to access other parts of town.
Oh wait.
Actually, she's back. She just went for groceries.
I see he's scrounged enough for an appeal on the Caroll case.
See new posts
Conversation
Leigh Jones
@leighsus
A new poll suggests Ben Houchen is set to lose the Tees Valley mayoral election in May.
It indicates an enormous swing to Labour after Lord Houchen won the last election with 73% of the vote.
https://twitter.com/leighsus/status/1766179009304330431
And whoever is in power when the drag goes into reverse get the benefit, irrespective of their policies.
How come Cambodia is INFINITELY safer and nicer than Colombia when it is easily as unequal as anywhere in South America AND experienced one of the greatest traumas in human history in living memory?
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1766207257878901245?s=46
If that’s anything like the reality it will be the moment the great Tory realignment met its maker.
People need alternatives. And bikes are only a limited alternative.
The review is on going with changes due to be implemented by no latter than this Autumn by councils across Wales, especially North Wales where councils were far more stringent than in South Wales
I would just say speeds are climbing to near 30mph and there has been no evidence of enforcement around our area other than outside schools
It helps that they abolished their army in 1948. In most Latin American countries the Army is an extortion racket, or the storm troopers of the large landowners.
Well worth a visit, but gets quite busy.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
This is at 4.30pm in the afternoon. I’ve come into the church as it is maybe the only place to use my phone without it getting stolen
Tentbox is quite well insulated and weatherproof, so pretty good to convert a regular car to a camper van. You need two people to lift it on as it's not light, and not all vehicles can take the weight with 2 people on board.
I have been tempted.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2021/11/the-amazing-elcas-causeway/
Per day.
Staple foods is a new one I’ve not heard. How does that work? The potato actually comes from here and now it is eaten around the world and ireland is a lot safer than Peru
The control freakery and dishonesty, which had served both him and the country well in domestic politics, ended up destroying him (and consequently many others) in Vietnam.
Sadly, I’m not sure we’ll ever get the Caro account of Vietnam.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1766215234904117328?t=v8DI9d8T_Hku-bnaJ07_4Q&s=19
Piers are much better IMO.
(*) I do wonder about truck bombs being driven up to the ships, though...
The charge, however, encapsulates the dilemma facing Hunt and Rishi Sunak as they attempt to sell the spring budget. How do you convince voters you are a tax cutter when the overall tax burden is still on course to rise to the highest level since 1948?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-hunt-budget-national-insurance-gamble-backfire-tory-mps-hhk32hc7p