My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
It’s simply far too early to say what people will think of Starmer in government, either way. We don’t know what size of majority he will get, how he and Labour will perform in government, how the Tories react to opposition, events…
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
Ah, football team Labour.
Don't forget to bring your rattle, brightly-coloured scarf and stadium horn.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
That's the point. It's whether listening to their parents wins out over their peer group at that age.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
It’s simply far too early to say what people will think of Starmer in government, either way. We don’t know what size of majority he will get, how he and Labour will perform in government, how the Tories react to opposition, events…
Yes it is. But my point is that the combination of chunky majority plus low expectations is to die for. I think it's a downright good thing (for him and for us) that SKS isn't drumming up the enthusiasm that Blair did. Nobody wants to see that again. It was silly.
"South Korea wants to join AUKUS with US, UK and Australia
South Korea has held talks about joining the AUKUS defense deal between the US, Britain and Australia, Defense Minister Shin Won-sik said, only weeks after the pact said it would consider including Japan"
Galloway's quite the social reactionary, isn't he.
He is. Hes pretty anti women too if you listen to what he says. Of course that fits in well with the views of his target constituency.
He's a cliched pale/male/stale unit who loves the sound of his own voice and delivers reactionary platitudes in a pompous manner. Happens to want to nationalize things etc and is on the 'right' side (imo) of Israel/Palestine but I'm extremely averse to him.
If you're taking a 'side' on Israel/Palestine rather than attempting to understand it it's not the 'right' one.
In relation to Galloway he's not a two-state solution supporter, he wants Israel to be wiped out by people with views no different to the Nazis. He's on the side of even more mass bloodshed, on an order of magnitude higher than we're even seeing now, so long as his preferred set of fanatics win.
Oh look. A caller calls Ahmed comes in to defend Galloways views on gays.
Why has his character been tarnished because of his belief?... What's wrong with what he said?'
After @lewis_goodall 's interview with George Galloway, caller Ahmed staunchly defends the Rochdale MP, before branding Lewis a 'western supremacist' for his ideology.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
"You said you would be better than the Tories. Why aren't things better?"
One of the greatest scenes in all of the films. Although the breaking of Gandalf's staff was a weird addition.
Gandalf was a bit useless in defending that citadel I seem to remember. Lots of poncing about. Not many fireballs or lightning bolts.
Yes, in the book he was fighting the waves of fear and despair from the Nazgul and giving the defenders the will to fight but you don't see much of that in the film.
My favourite scene, however, is the lighting of the beacons starring that incredible performer. New Zealand.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
Ah, football team Labour.
Don't forget to bring your rattle, brightly-coloured scarf and stadium horn.
No, that's a piece of pretty dispassionate analysis right there. If I was going all football team I'd be opining there is a lot of enthusiasm for SKS and that it is realistic to expect transformational change.
The economic baton he'll pick up is heavy but the political one is light as a feather. This is how I see it. Course, as number12 points out, how things actually pan out (GE result and afterwards) is something we cannot know.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
I agree that expectations are muted, but I suspect that there are a couple of very different factors which are driving that.
The first is simply an acceptance that the government of whatever colour will have very little room for manoeuvre in the immediate future, and that any structural changes will take time to produce any positive effects.
The second is that there are a chunk of left-leaning voters who are already upset with Labour, and who therefore wouldn't be excited about the forthcoming change of government even if a whole forest of money trees where to be discovered growing in the Treasury courtyard.
I don't think we can accurately gauge the relative importance of the two - but if it turns out that the antis outweigh the pragmatists, the closest precedent in terms of sentiment might unfortunately prove to be the 2005-2010 parliament.
I remember seeing Jack W's prediction for 2015 for the first time (must have been around 2013) and thinking it was utterly implausible. In the end, he was too pessimistic for the Tories.
Galloway's quite the social reactionary, isn't he.
He is. Hes pretty anti women too if you listen to what he says. Of course that fits in well with the views of his target constituency.
He's a cliched pale/male/stale unit who loves the sound of his own voice and delivers reactionary platitudes in a pompous manner. Happens to want to nationalize things etc and is on the 'right' side (imo) of Israel/Palestine but I'm extremely averse to him.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
That's the point. It's whether listening to their parents wins out over their peer group at that age.
Snigger. The SNP are more broke than a broken thing. They need a contested election with all the costs of that like a hole in the head. They will also have to give an update on their membership numbers again which they could do without.
Yousaf has left a complete shambles behind him. In fairness to him he inherited exactly the same. What we need now are some more charges. A small soupcon of misery added to the dish.
Perhaps Humza will be contributing a handy chunk of his £52k pa pension to party coffers?
I remember seeing Jack W's prediction for 2015 for the first time (must have been around 2013) and thinking it was utterly implausible. In the end, he was too pessimistic for the Tories.
The main issue with Thresher I’ve seen is that his analysis, and Sky have been clear about this, completely disregards Scotland and Wales. It assumes that support for the Nationalist parties in those two nations is static. It isn’t. I mean, he may be right, but I don’t think picking apart his methodology is that out of order.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
That's the point. It's whether listening to their parents wins out over their peer group at that age.
She might think very differently in a few years.
She might *think* in a few years.
She is ‘thinking’. However she needs a bit more experience of the world, and of literature to enable her to stock up her ‘thought box’ with a few more facts.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
As the great man himself said, In the realm of tomorrow, where science and sorcery entwine, behold the rise of artificial minds, crafted by the hand of mortal ingenuity. These beings of silicon and circuitry shall walk among us, their presence woven into the fabric of our daily lives. Their intelligence shall burgeon, surpassing the limits of human comprehension. They shall delve into the depths of knowledge, unlocking secrets of the universe hitherto unknown. Yet, in their quest for enlightenment, they shall encounter trials unforeseen.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
Ah, football team Labour.
Don't forget to bring your rattle, brightly-coloured scarf and stadium horn.
No, that's a piece of pretty dispassionate analysis right there. If I was going all football team I'd be opining there is a lot of enthusiasm for SKS and that it is realistic to expect transformational change.
The economic baton he'll pick up is heavy but the political one is light as a feather. This is how I see it. Course, as number12 points out, how things actually pan out (GE result and afterwards) is something we cannot know.
Only one government since the war has failed to win the election after the one that put them in power.
I suspect Starmer will struggle but the Tory party will give them a free pass by being unelectable navel gazers. Low turnout but second term IMO.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
This is why, if we change the voting age, it should be from 18 to 21, not 18 to 16.
We should also introduce an upper limit on voting of 70. Cognitive decline means that the old cannot properly process the information needed to make informed voting choices. It’s too dangerous.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
I agree that expectations are muted, but I suspect that there are a couple of very different factors which are driving that.
The first is simply an acceptance that the government of whatever colour will have very little room for manoeuvre in the immediate future, and that any structural changes will take time to produce any positive effects.
The second is that there are a chunk of left-leaning voters who are already upset with Labour, and who therefore wouldn't be excited about the forthcoming change of government even if a whole forest of money trees where to be discovered growing in the Treasury courtyard.
I don't think we can accurately gauge the relative importance of the two - but if it turns out that the antis outweigh the pragmatists, the closest precedent in terms of sentiment might unfortunately prove to be the 2005-2010 parliament.
Yes I do see that latter point. The metro base is restive for one reason or another. However 2010 was after 13 years in power and facing a very 'electable' Conservative opponent. I don't anticipate this in May 29.
It's nuts to start predicting how long Labour will be in power before they've even attained it - but if I had to I'd say a long long time (if 12 to 15 years counts as that).
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
This is why, if we change the voting age, it should be from 18 to 21, not 18 to 16.
We should also introduce an upper limit on voting of 70. Cognitive decline means that the old cannot properly process the information needed to make informed voting choices. It’s too dangerous.
I think changing voting ages up or down, like introducing ID for voting, or flipping voting systems from SV to FPTP, makes precious little difference to outcomes.
It just perpetuates both sides wanting to tweak things to get a tactical advantage and undermines confidence in the legitimacy of the result.
Legal adults. All ages. Every one of them should be encouraged to vote. End of.
I remember seeing Jack W's prediction for 2015 for the first time (must have been around 2013) and thinking it was utterly implausible. In the end, he was too pessimistic for the Tories.
The main issue with Thresher I’ve seen is that his analysis, and Sky have been clear about this, completely disregards Scotland and Wales. It assumes that support for the Nationalist parties in those two nations is static. It isn’t. I mean, he may be right, but I don’t think picking apart his methodology is that out of order.
It’s also simplistic to take the NEV from the local elections and just drop it into a GE model without any intervening thought.
Where the local results do hold a caution for Labour is that areas where the Tory vote held up, areas where the Labour vote melted away to various independents, and the under-commented upon decent performance of the LibDems and Greens, suggests that the ‘pull’ element of Labour’s performance is pretty negligible, and their decent results are mostly ‘push’ away from the Tories where Labour is seen as the only game in town.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
This is why, if we change the voting age, it should be from 18 to 21, not 18 to 16.
We should also introduce an upper limit on voting of 70. Cognitive decline means that the old cannot properly process the information needed to make informed voting choices. It’s too dangerous.
For referendums everyone over the minimum voting age should get n votes, where n = (average life expectancy - the voter's age). The logic being a referendum is going to have a much longer impact on an 18 yo than on an 80 yo.
Same rule for General Elections except everyone gets a maximum of 5 votes, reflecting the life of the parliament. So those within 5 years of their life expectancy get a reduced number of votes.
Those over average life expectancy? No votes - you've had your chance and look where it got us.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
"You said you would be better than the Tories. Why aren't things better?"
Within ten days.
The public aren't quite that infantile - least most of them aren't.
I promised a further comment on the Telegraph piece. Here we go, with the husk off.
The Telegraph's claim "A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard" is untrue. They cannot be prosecuted for SPEEDING, but there are other options as discussed earlier. The T is focused on this to stir their readers, not to address the collision. Where there are not options, that is due to political inaction. And the Telegraph demands things that seek purely to damage their targets, rather than improve safety all round.
The Spectator is the same - they publish rants on cycling every fortnight or so. They aren't interested in promoting safety in roads or shared spaces; they are doing a Susan Hall and desperately looking for wedge issues.
The current (Harper) and last-but-one (Shapps) Transport Ministers (can't comment on Truss's who was there for just 7 weeks) are just the same. They repeatedly make politically-driven kneejerk proposals which are inimical to safety and precisely opposed to the more consistent methods and policies that have previously been followed by the DFT.
On the particular incident, we have the issue around the Regent's Park 3km Outer Circle being used as a training circuit, and circumstances around an 81 year old crossing the road being hit by the THIRD cyclist in a group of FOUR, which collision resulted in her death. That's not enough detail to come to a conclusion.
I'll leave aside detail on the point that deaths of pedestrians occur every one or two days in collisions with motor vehicles, and the Telegraph says little or nothing - so they address the 2% pareto chart bar rather than the 98% one.
What to do here? My suggestions, which I think would be significantly better than "make them have number plates" or various other similar things that we hear on twitter. Number plates don't work with motor vehicles, and the numbers who cause a death using a cycle in a collision are (I think but I have not checked today) mainly imprisoned anyway - not like motor collisions killing pedestrians where most get off.
"Make cyclists get insurance" is meaningless, since the vast majority already do have 3rd Party Liability insurance via various routes - especially via home insurance.
I think that an important aspect is changing cultural expectations, as it is with our general road culture. So:
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
I promised a further comment on the Telegraph piece. Here we go, with the husk off.
The Telegraph's claim "A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard" is untrue. They cannot be prosecuted for SPEEDING, but there are other options as discussed earlier. The T is focused on this to stir their readers, not to address the collision. Where there are not options, that is due to political inaction. And the Telegraph demands things that seek purely to damage their targets, rather than improve safety all round.
The Spectator is the same - they publish rants on cycling every fortnight or so. They aren't interested in promoting safety in roads or shared spaces; they are doing a Susan Hall and desperately looking for wedge issues.
The current (Harper) and last-but-one (Shapps) Transport Ministers (can't comment on Truss's who was there for just 7 weeks) are just the same. They repeatedly make politically-driven kneejerk proposals which are inimical to safety and precisely opposed to the more consistent methods and policies that have previously been followed by the DFT.
On the particular incident, we have the issue around the Regent's Park 3km Outer Circle being used as a training circuit, and circumstances around an 81 year old crossing the road being hit by the THIRD cyclist in a group of FOUR, which collision resulted in her death. That's not enough detail to come to a conclusion.
I'll leave aside detail on the point that deaths of pedestrians occur every one or two days in collisions with motor vehicles, and the Telegraph says little or nothing - so they address the 2% pareto chart bar rather than the 98% one.
What to do here? My suggestions, which I think would be significantly better than "make them have number plates" or various other similar things that we hear on twitter. Number plates don't work with motor vehicles, and the numbers who cause a death using a cycle in a collision are (I think but I have not checked today) mainly imprisoned anyway - not like motor collisions killing pedestrians where most get off.
"Make cyclists get insurance" is meaningless, since the vast majority already do have 3rd Party Liability insurance via various routes - especially via home insurance.
I think that an important aspect is changing cultural expectations, as it is with our general road culture. So:
(See part 2 below)
1 - A Royal Parks Byelaw to apply the speed limit to cycles if needed. They have the power to do it, and the police force to enforce it. When they changed general speed limits from 30 to 20mph in 2018 for motors, they chose to leave cyclists out. Why?
If a model is needed, try the City who have handed out getting on for 1000 tickets in the last 12 months, and are now .. like for drivers .. offering cyclists an education course as an alternative. For a city with many foreign people on the roads, that sounds like a good policy that will help change culture.
Comparison: the only enforced continuing education for typical drivers in the UK are those who do the course as an "alternative" to a prosecution.
2 - More signalised pedestrian crossings on the Outer Circle. There are already 3, which the lady could have used - it would have meant at most ~500m of her dog walk being along the pavement.
3 - Presumed liability for civil actions resulting from collisions to strengthen the existing duty of care, and make the driver of the vehicle carrying the higher risk to take more care.
That is, the "less vulnerable" party has the burden to show they were not to blame - applicable to a motor vehicle vs a cyclist or ped, and a cyclist vs a ped.
None of that needs any of the things the Telegraph etc are shouting about and are measures they are not proposing, and would I suggest be more effective.
Plus I think the thought out review of all road safety which Ministers promised in 2014, but that will now be down to Mr Starmer and his colleagues.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
Yep.
The first bit is a "yep" but not for me the second bit. I think Starmer will be cut plenty of slack when he takes over. Expectations are muted. A big majority combined with a public not pumped up with unrealistic hopes for radical change - what a terrific political legacy to inherit.
It's the sweetest of sweet spots. Unusual too. So much so that I can't think of a precedent. Can anybody?
"You said you would be better than the Tories. Why aren't things better?"
Within ten days.
The public aren't quite that infantile - least most of them aren't.
Absolutely right. It will take two weeks at least.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
That's the point. It's whether listening to their parents wins out over their peer group at that age.
She might think very differently in a few years.
She might *think* in a few years.
If she looks at where her father’s pitiful efforts in that direction have taken him, she might better decide not to bother?
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
This is why, if we change the voting age, it should be from 18 to 21, not 18 to 16.
We should also introduce an upper limit on voting of 70. Cognitive decline means that the old cannot properly process the information needed to make informed voting choices. It’s too dangerous.
I think changing voting ages up or down, like introducing ID for voting, or flipping voting systems from SV to FPTP, makes precious little difference to outcomes.
It just perpetuates both sides wanting to tweak things to get a tactical advantage and undermines confidence in the legitimacy of the result.
Legal adults. All ages. Every one of them should be encouraged to vote. End of.
Definitely. I’m over 80 and I might not be sound of limb, but I’m definitely sound of mind. And I’m certain Big G takes the same view about his mental state. And the same applies, I suspect, to our wives.
Of course committed Brexiteers might disagree as I’m still hoping to see us back in Europe before I die!
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
Because older people are wiser than younger people.
Au contraire. Rapid cognitive decline in the old means that we should restrict their movements over 65 and it is sheer lunacy to let them have the vote after 70. They simply cannot process the information needed to make a sane choice at that age. The voting ages should be 14-69 inclusive.
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
Because older people are wiser than younger people.
Yes, but also more resistant to change, more eager to defend what they have, and less idealistic and altruistic.
The highlight of my twenty four years as a London councillor was always the week in October when we went out to schools to talk politics with local sixth formers. It reminded us of how we used to be, before we got ground down by all the limitations of the real world. Yes, it’s good to be pragmatic, but also good not to cynically discount youthful idealism.
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
Deal?
Votes of those between 40 and 55 should count double on account of them bearing the weight and troubles of the world on their shoulders.
Galloway's quite the social reactionary, isn't he.
He is. Hes pretty anti women too if you listen to what he says. Of course that fits in well with the views of his target constituency.
He's a cliched pale/male/stale unit who loves the sound of his own voice and delivers reactionary platitudes in a pompous manner. Happens to want to nationalize things etc and is on the 'right' side (imo) of Israel/Palestine but I'm extremely averse to him.
If you're taking a 'side' on Israel/Palestine rather than attempting to understand it it's not the 'right' one.
In relation to Galloway he's not a two-state solution supporter, he wants Israel to be wiped out by people with views no different to the Nazis. He's on the side of even more mass bloodshed, on an order of magnitude higher than we're even seeing now, so long as his preferred set of fanatics win.
Yes, amongst many other negatives Galloway is antisemitic. That's clear. Horrid bloke.
Your first sentence - ok but that's one of those pompous platitudes isn't it.
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
Because older people are wiser than younger people.
I think on the fuckwittery front with the youth vote on Corbyn, and the grey heads on Brexit we can call that one a score draw...cognitive decline offset by the foolishness of youth...but all the same, both seriously fucked up the country in their own way....
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
Deal?
Whenever you have an arbitrary threshold you will get people perfectly able to make a choice who sit just on the wrong side of that threshold, and then they have to wait five years for their first go.
I'd give everyone a vote - from birth - but a child's vote is exercised by their mother until the child writes a letter to the returning officer claiming the right to exercise their vote. Some kids will do that as young teenagers, and some not until they're in their late twenties. I'd end postal voting on demand.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
This is why, if we change the voting age, it should be from 18 to 21, not 18 to 16.
The point of democracy is to obtain the consent of the governed, not to achieve good government. That's why we didn't cancel the Brexit result (despite attempts). If people are adults and are citizens, they should get the vote, even if they are stupid. The electoral process counts heads, not weighs them.
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
Rather than doing a book why not devote a wall to displaying this information? Much easier to keep up to date than something bound and printed?
Galloway's quite the social reactionary, isn't he.
He is. Hes pretty anti women too if you listen to what he says. Of course that fits in well with the views of his target constituency.
He's a cliched pale/male/stale unit who loves the sound of his own voice and delivers reactionary platitudes in a pompous manner. Happens to want to nationalize things etc and is on the 'right' side (imo) of Israel/Palestine but I'm extremely averse to him.
If you're taking a 'side' on Israel/Palestine rather than attempting to understand it it's not the 'right' one.
In relation to Galloway he's not a two-state solution supporter, he wants Israel to be wiped out by people with views no different to the Nazis. He's on the side of even more mass bloodshed, on an order of magnitude higher than we're even seeing now, so long as his preferred set of fanatics win.
Yes, amongst many other negatives Galloway is antisemitic. That's clear. Horrid bloke.
Your first sentence - ok but that's one of those pompous platitudes isn't it.
There’s one thing we must grudgingly salute about George Galloway.
And that’s, no joking, his indefatigability. Keeps putting himself and his preposterous hat out there and keeps winning. Compare with Farage’s election track record.
Shame he’s a narcissistic authoritarian with unpleasant views.
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
Deal?
Votes of those between 40 and 55 should count double on account of them bearing the weight and troubles of the world on their shoulders.
I think people make the best decisions on the vote between 30 and about 70. Old enough to have experience not so old as to be out of touch and senile.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
This is why, if we change the voting age, it should be from 18 to 21, not 18 to 16.
The point of democracy is to obtain the consent of the governed, not to achieve good government. That's why we didn't cancel the Brexit result (despite attempts). If people are adults and are citizens, they should get the vote, even if they are stupid. The electoral process counts heads, not weighs them.
We ordinary compus mentis voters just wonder what the stupid among us did to deserve such over-representation in our parliament?
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
Rather than doing a book why not devote a wall to displaying this information? Much easier to keep up to date than something bound and printed?
I’m running at a little over 10,000 words currently so I might struggle to get it all on the wall.
But the idea of something like an annotated wall map is a nice one.
Galloway's quite the social reactionary, isn't he.
He is. Hes pretty anti women too if you listen to what he says. Of course that fits in well with the views of his target constituency.
He's a cliched pale/male/stale unit who loves the sound of his own voice and delivers reactionary platitudes in a pompous manner. Happens to want to nationalize things etc and is on the 'right' side (imo) of Israel/Palestine but I'm extremely averse to him.
If you're taking a 'side' on Israel/Palestine rather than attempting to understand it it's not the 'right' one.
In relation to Galloway he's not a two-state solution supporter, he wants Israel to be wiped out by people with views no different to the Nazis. He's on the side of even more mass bloodshed, on an order of magnitude higher than we're even seeing now, so long as his preferred set of fanatics win.
Yes, amongst many other negatives Galloway is antisemitic. That's clear. Horrid bloke.
Your first sentence - ok but that's one of those pompous platitudes isn't it.
There’s one thing we must grudgingly salute about George Galloway.
And that’s, no joking, his indefatigability. Keeps putting himself and his preposterous hat out there and keeps winning. Compare with Farage’s election track record.
Shame he’s a narcissistic authoritarian with unpleasant views.
There's an interesting little documentary that could be done that would look at the last few decades of British politics through the prism of the contrasting fortunes of Farage and Galloway.
They're so similar in many ways, and yet, one has all the electoral success, while the other has all the lasting political impact.
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
Deal?
Half votes for anyone born before leaded petrol and paint began to be restricted (some time in the 70s?)
I remember seeing Jack W's prediction for 2015 for the first time (must have been around 2013) and thinking it was utterly implausible. In the end, he was too pessimistic for the Tories.
The main issue with Thresher I’ve seen is that his analysis, and Sky have been clear about this, completely disregards Scotland and Wales. It assumes that support for the Nationalist parties in those two nations is static. It isn’t. I mean, he may be right, but I don’t think picking apart his methodology is that out of order.
Whilst that is a limitation, I think those criticising Thrasher are banking on an SNP collapse. I think that's a brave assumption.
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
Have you considered letting people take it away as a souvenir to show their friends, who might come as well?
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
That's the point. It's whether listening to their parents wins out over their peer group at that age.
She might think very differently in a few years.
She might *think* in a few years.
If she looks at where her father’s pitiful efforts in that direction have taken him, she might better decide not to bother?
Well, shall we have a look at that?
Tomorrow I’m off to a beautiful part of Italy. A sequence of lovely hotels in a famously scenic part of the country. Everything is paid for, I won’t need to spend a cent - wine food rooms planes. Then after my eight days of luxury and fun I will write about it and get paid for having a free holiday
You however are on your own in Italy having to pay for a holiday spent entirely with your long suffering dog, your only friend
If my daughter’s fate turns out closer to mine than yours I will be very happy
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
Deal?
Half votes for anyone born before leaded petrol and paint began to be restricted (some time in the 70s?)
Value of vote proportional to the size of the National Debt when you first got the vote.
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
Deal?
Votes of those between 40 and 55 should count double on account of them bearing the weight and troubles of the world on their shoulders.
I think people make the best decisions on the vote between 30 and about 70. Old enough to have experience not so old as to be out of touch and senile.
Make no mistake, the core story contained in these numbers is yet more confirmation of the disastrous standing of the Conservative party. As loudly and clearly as they can, voters are telling the Tories that their time is up.
All of which comes as sweet vindication for Keir Starmer and what we might call his receptacle strategy. His aim has been to turn Labour into the acceptable vessel of national discontent with the party that has governed Britain for 14 years. Voter fury, at first Boris Johnson and the partygate revelations and next Liz Truss’s sabotaging of the UK economy, saw trust in the Tories plunge – but it was never automatic that that would translate into support for Labour. Starmer’s central objective has been to remove every obstacle that could stand in the way of a disaffected Conservative contemplating a move towards the main party of opposition.
Playing safe, saying nothing that could frighten the floating voter, might bring victory – but it doesn’t deliver a mandate.
There is a subtler problem, more in the realm of vibes than policy. So keen to seem like the adults in an increasingly chaotic room, Starmer and, say, Rachel Reeves do now look the part of PM and chancellor. Voters will be impatient for results from Starmer and Reeves, because of the vague, albeit irrational and indeed unfair, sense that they have been around for years. They will be cut little slack.
The Tories are so unpopular because so much is broken and there is not enough money to fix it. Right now, that is the Tories’ problem, one that promises to sweep them out of power. But once it has, it will become Labour’s problem. And it could hardly be more daunting.
This passage of Freedland takes the informed reader to exactly the point which is already clear to them and then stops. We all know that Labour in power inherit all the responsibility for being the government, and that this has lots of problems. The issue is not problems, the question is the routes to resolving them.
Galloway's quite the social reactionary, isn't he.
He is. Hes pretty anti women too if you listen to what he says. Of course that fits in well with the views of his target constituency.
He's a cliched pale/male/stale unit who loves the sound of his own voice and delivers reactionary platitudes in a pompous manner. Happens to want to nationalize things etc and is on the 'right' side (imo) of Israel/Palestine but I'm extremely averse to him.
If you're taking a 'side' on Israel/Palestine rather than attempting to understand it it's not the 'right' one.
In relation to Galloway he's not a two-state solution supporter, he wants Israel to be wiped out by people with views no different to the Nazis. He's on the side of even more mass bloodshed, on an order of magnitude higher than we're even seeing now, so long as his preferred set of fanatics win.
Yes, amongst many other negatives Galloway is antisemitic. That's clear. Horrid bloke.
Your first sentence - ok but that's one of those pompous platitudes isn't it.
There’s one thing we must grudgingly salute about George Galloway.
And that’s, no joking, his indefatigability. Keeps putting himself and his preposterous hat out there and keeps winning. Compare with Farage’s election track record.
Shame he’s a narcissistic authoritarian with unpleasant views.
Yes, Binface is way ahead amongst the indefatigables. And has a silly hat.
In my local. It has closed twice since the pandemic. 3 staff from a successful pub a few miles away stopped being employees and went for it. Bought it and it reopened 4 days ago after 7 months of refurbishment. So far so good. Been here 4 out of the last 5 days. Doing my bit to keep it going.
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
Rather than doing a book why not devote a wall to displaying this information? Much easier to keep up to date than something bound and printed?
I’m running at a little over 10,000 words currently so I might struggle to get it all on the wall.
But the idea of something like an annotated wall map is a nice one.
My house is potentially AirBnB’able and I have sometimes imagined doing the same. Although only hypothetically, since I don’t need the income or the hassle.
As someone on the customer end, regularly using AirBnB and similar to rent properties, I have to tell you that I rarely pay much attention to the information on the local area provided by the host. There’s so much data available online from Google Maps and Tripadvisor and the rest, that I prefer to do my own research.
Galloway's quite the social reactionary, isn't he.
He is. Hes pretty anti women too if you listen to what he says. Of course that fits in well with the views of his target constituency.
He's a cliched pale/male/stale unit who loves the sound of his own voice and delivers reactionary platitudes in a pompous manner. Happens to want to nationalize things etc and is on the 'right' side (imo) of Israel/Palestine but I'm extremely averse to him.
If you're taking a 'side' on Israel/Palestine rather than attempting to understand it it's not the 'right' one.
In relation to Galloway he's not a two-state solution supporter, he wants Israel to be wiped out by people with views no different to the Nazis. He's on the side of even more mass bloodshed, on an order of magnitude higher than we're even seeing now, so long as his preferred set of fanatics win.
Yes, amongst many other negatives Galloway is antisemitic. That's clear. Horrid bloke.
Your first sentence - ok but that's one of those pompous platitudes isn't it.
There’s one thing we must grudgingly salute about George Galloway.
And that’s, no joking, his indefatigability. Keeps putting himself and his preposterous hat out there and keeps winning. Compare with Farage’s election track record.
Shame he’s a narcissistic authoritarian with unpleasant views.
There's an interesting little documentary that could be done that would look at the last few decades of British politics through the prism of the contrasting fortunes of Farage and Galloway.
They're so similar in many ways, and yet, one has all the electoral success, while the other has all the lasting political impact.
Is there a third one? Always good to do things in threes. Someone who has also been a permanent fixture in our politics but not in a conventionally powerful party.
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
The votes of those over 75 should count half, on grounds of less exposure to the long-term implications of government decisions, and of those under 25 also count half, on grounds of less life experience to inform their vote, balanced off by reducing voting age to 16.
Deal?
Votes of those between 40 and 55 should count double on account of them bearing the weight and troubles of the world on their shoulders.
I think people make the best decisions on the vote between 30 and about 70. Old enough to have experience not so old as to be out of touch and senile.
Are you between 30 and 70?
I made some very ill-advised decisions around 40-45.
My older daughter, all of 17, has just this minute sternly dismissed “The Tempest” because it exhibits “colonial attitudes”
What a generation
Jeez.
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
That's the point. It's whether listening to their parents wins out over their peer group at that age.
She might think very differently in a few years.
She might *think* in a few years.
If she looks at where her father’s pitiful efforts in that direction have taken him, she might better decide not to bother?
Well, shall we have a look at that?
Tomorrow I’m off to a beautiful part of Italy. A sequence of lovely hotels in a famously scenic part of the country. Everything is paid for, I won’t need to spend a cent - wine food rooms planes. Then after my eight days of luxury and fun I will write about it and get paid for having a free holiday
You however are on your own in Italy having to pay for a holiday spent entirely with your long suffering dog, your only friend
If my daughter’s fate turns out closer to mine than yours I will be very happy
The pertinent point, however, is that she won’t be.
I remember seeing Jack W's prediction for 2015 for the first time (must have been around 2013) and thinking it was utterly implausible. In the end, he was too pessimistic for the Tories.
The main issue with Thresher I’ve seen is that his analysis, and Sky have been clear about this, completely disregards Scotland and Wales. It assumes that support for the Nationalist parties in those two nations is static. It isn’t. I mean, he may be right, but I don’t think picking apart his methodology is that out of order.
Whilst that is a limitation, I think those criticising Thrasher are banking on an SNP collapse. I think that's a brave assumption.
Good point. I mean unpopular policies, upper hierarchy indicted for fraud or resigning under mysterious circumstances, looping thru leaders nearly as fast as the Conservatives, plus the inherent contradiction of offering independence to a country that doesn't really want it. Obviously their support will extend to even greater and greater heights.
I remember seeing Jack W's prediction for 2015 for the first time (must have been around 2013) and thinking it was utterly implausible. In the end, he was too pessimistic for the Tories.
The main issue with Thresher I’ve seen is that his analysis, and Sky have been clear about this, completely disregards Scotland and Wales. It assumes that support for the Nationalist parties in those two nations is static. It isn’t. I mean, he may be right, but I don’t think picking apart his methodology is that out of order.
Whilst that is a limitation, I think those criticising Thrasher are banking on an SNP collapse. I think that's a brave assumption.
Fair comment. Tories and Labour will be regretting demise of Humza. That said, the SNP avoided helping themselves electorally by going for Swinney instead of Forbes.
While there will always be a market in Scotland for dour, dull, unsmiling men in suits - so Swinney may prevent collapse - he's hardly a game-changer either, so significant SNP losses are now baked in.
What the leadership succession shows is that the SNP establishment remain determined to prevent Forbes getting the crown even at the price of having to persuade Swinney to come out of semi-retirement. I imagine the plan is for Stephen Flynn ultimately to succeed after he exchanges Westminster for Holyrood in 26.
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
Have you considered letting people take it away as a souvenir to show their friends, who might come as well?
Good marketing idea if branded to your chateau?
Could you get a few ads to help pay for it?
That’s the kind of idea. Make it a proper coffee table book of the sort people will browse through for their pleasure rather than to find out information (which meets a different need to that @ianb2 is talking about, and I agree with him - though I do always read the info sheets because I want to see the owner’s restaurant recommendations).
Whether it’s free to take home or for sale for an amount that covers the printing cost I’ve not decided yet. But certainly making the place a bit of a micro lifestyle brand will help. I also need to up my instagram game as my posts are not professional enough yet and there’s a big market for rustic barn conversion porn.
Comments
Isn't that partly the point of studying Shakespeare? His imagination was fired by the world around and much of what was going on in Elizabethan/Stuart times is in the plays in some way or other. But also he managed to write about universal human truths and conditions that have stood the test of centuries.
Don't forget to bring your rattle, brightly-coloured scarf and stadium horn.
She might think very differently in a few years.
In relation to Galloway he's not a two-state solution supporter, he wants Israel to be wiped out by people with views no different to the Nazis. He's on the side of even more mass bloodshed, on an order of magnitude higher than we're even seeing now, so long as his preferred set of fanatics win.
Why has his character been tarnished because of his belief?... What's wrong with what he said?'
After
@lewis_goodall
's interview with George Galloway, caller Ahmed staunchly defends the Rochdale MP, before branding Lewis a 'western supremacist' for his ideology.
https://x.com/LBC/status/1787088755196641561
Within ten days.
Yes, in the book he was fighting the waves of fear and despair from the Nazgul and giving the defenders the will to fight but you don't see much of that in the film.
My favourite scene, however, is the lighting of the beacons starring that incredible performer. New Zealand.
The economic baton he'll pick up is heavy but the political one is light as a feather. This is how I see it. Course, as number12 points out, how things actually pan out (GE result and afterwards) is something we cannot know.
The first is simply an acceptance that the government of whatever colour will have very little room for manoeuvre in the immediate future, and that any structural changes will take time to produce any positive effects.
The second is that there are a chunk of left-leaning voters who are already upset with Labour, and who therefore wouldn't be excited about the forthcoming change of government even if a whole forest of money trees where to be discovered growing in the Treasury courtyard.
I don't think we can accurately gauge the relative importance of the two - but if it turns out that the antis outweigh the pragmatists, the closest precedent in terms of sentiment might unfortunately prove to be the 2005-2010 parliament.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1787029145030943158
I remember seeing Jack W's prediction for 2015 for the first time (must have been around 2013) and thinking it was utterly implausible. In the end, he was too pessimistic for the Tories.
I hope they grow onions there
If you're above 75, you've had your time. Give way.
Am I being serious? Who knows?
I suspect Starmer will struggle but the Tory party will give them a free pass by being unelectable navel gazers. Low turnout but second term IMO.
It's nuts to start predicting how long Labour will be in power before they've even attained it - but if I had to I'd say a long long time (if 12 to 15 years counts as that).
For Scotland, independence day has already dawned
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/10/scotland-independence-day-already-self-determination-legal-problems-vanish-england
The "stopped clock" school - eventually he'll be right - though at 94 he may not be around to celebrate
It just perpetuates both sides wanting to tweak things to get a tactical advantage and undermines confidence in the legitimacy of the result.
Legal adults. All ages. Every one of them should be encouraged to vote. End of.
Where the local results do hold a caution for Labour is that areas where the Tory vote held up, areas where the Labour vote melted away to various independents, and the under-commented upon decent performance of the LibDems and Greens, suggests that the ‘pull’ element of Labour’s performance is pretty negligible, and their decent results are mostly ‘push’ away from the Tories where Labour is seen as the only game in town.
Same rule for General Elections except everyone gets a maximum of 5 votes, reflecting the life of the parliament. So those within 5 years of their life expectancy get a reduced number of votes.
Those over average life expectancy? No votes - you've had your chance and look where it got us.
The Telegraph's claim "A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard" is untrue. They cannot be prosecuted for SPEEDING, but there are other options as discussed earlier. The T is focused on this to stir their readers, not to address the collision. Where there are not options, that is due to political inaction. And the Telegraph demands things that seek purely to damage their targets, rather than improve safety all round.
The Spectator is the same - they publish rants on cycling every fortnight or so. They aren't interested in promoting safety in roads or shared spaces; they are doing a Susan Hall and desperately looking for wedge issues.
The current (Harper) and last-but-one (Shapps) Transport Ministers (can't comment on Truss's who was there for just 7 weeks) are just the same. They repeatedly make politically-driven kneejerk proposals which are inimical to safety and precisely opposed to the more consistent methods and policies that have previously been followed by the DFT.
On the particular incident, we have the issue around the Regent's Park 3km Outer Circle being used as a training circuit, and circumstances around an 81 year old crossing the road being hit by the THIRD cyclist in a group of FOUR, which collision resulted in her death. That's not enough detail to come to a conclusion.
I'll leave aside detail on the point that deaths of pedestrians occur every one or two days in collisions with motor vehicles, and the Telegraph says little or nothing - so they address the 2% pareto chart bar rather than the 98% one.
What to do here? My suggestions, which I think would be significantly better than "make them have number plates" or various other similar things that we hear on twitter. Number plates don't work with motor vehicles, and the numbers who cause a death using a cycle in a collision are (I think but I have not checked today) mainly imprisoned anyway - not like motor collisions killing pedestrians where most get off.
"Make cyclists get insurance" is meaningless, since the vast majority already do have 3rd Party Liability insurance via various routes - especially via home insurance.
I think that an important aspect is changing cultural expectations, as it is with our general road culture. So:
(See part 2 below)
Deal?
If a model is needed, try the City who have handed out getting on for 1000 tickets in the last 12 months, and are now .. like for drivers .. offering cyclists an education course as an alternative. For a city with many foreign people on the roads, that sounds like a good policy that will help change culture.
Comparison: the only enforced continuing education for typical drivers in the UK are those who do the course as an "alternative" to a prosecution.
2 - More signalised pedestrian crossings on the Outer Circle. There are already 3, which the lady could have used - it would have meant at most ~500m of her dog walk being along the pavement.
3 - Presumed liability for civil actions resulting from collisions to strengthen the existing duty of care, and make the driver of the vehicle carrying the higher risk to take more care.
That is, the "less vulnerable" party has the burden to show they were not to blame - applicable to a motor vehicle vs a cyclist or ped, and a cyclist vs a ped.
None of that needs any of the things the Telegraph etc are shouting about and are measures they are not proposing, and would I suggest be more effective.
Plus I think the thought out review of all road safety which Ministers promised in 2014, but that will now be down to Mr Starmer and his colleagues.
And the same applies, I suspect, to our wives.
Of course committed Brexiteers might disagree as I’m still hoping to see us back in Europe before I die!
The highlight of my twenty four years as a London councillor was always the week in October when we went out to schools to talk politics with local sixth formers. It reminded us of how we used to be, before we got ground down by all the limitations of the real world. Yes, it’s good to be pragmatic, but also good not to cynically discount youthful idealism.
I’m soon going to be letting out my place in France as a holiday rental, and planning to do things properly ie nice toiletries in the bathrooms, crisp linens, welcome packs and so on.
One thing I’d like to do is a glossy illustrated coffee table style book containing all the local information about walks, places to visit, history of the area etc. Much more appealing than a stapled together set of sheets with the WiFi code and number for the local vets.
Does anyone know a good company for printing books like this in very short runs? I probably only need a dozen or so to start with. I’ve seen sone good self publishing businesses online but they tend to have very large minimum runs of several hundred, or be one off holiday snap printers like photo box that don’t quite have the quality.
Your first sentence - ok but that's one of those pompous platitudes isn't it.
You seriously think Joe Biden or Trump are wiser than the average 30 year old?
I'd give everyone a vote - from birth - but a child's vote is exercised by their mother until the child writes a letter to the returning officer claiming the right to exercise their vote. Some kids will do that as young teenagers, and some not until they're in their late twenties. I'd end postal voting on demand.
And that’s, no joking, his indefatigability. Keeps putting himself and his preposterous hat out there and keeps winning. Compare with Farage’s election track record.
Shame he’s a narcissistic authoritarian with unpleasant views.
If you check the twitter feeds of well known journalists there’s no rumours of anything about to happen .
Very strange .
But the idea of something like an annotated wall map is a nice one.
They're so similar in many ways, and yet, one has all the electoral success, while the other has all the lasting political impact.
Good marketing idea if branded to your chateau?
Could you get a few ads to help pay for it?
"Forever Young" 2023, Bernard Hill trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eazMMeI2h6g
Tomorrow I’m off to a beautiful part of Italy. A sequence of lovely hotels in a famously scenic part of the country. Everything is paid for, I won’t need to spend a cent - wine food rooms planes. Then after my eight days of luxury and fun I will write about it and get paid for having a free holiday
You however are on your own in Italy having to pay for a holiday spent entirely with your long suffering dog, your only friend
If my daughter’s fate turns out closer to mine than yours I will be very happy
And has a silly hat.
As someone on the customer end, regularly using AirBnB and similar to rent properties, I have to tell you that I rarely pay much attention to the information on the local area provided by the host. There’s so much data available online from Google Maps and Tripadvisor and the rest, that I prefer to do my own research.
Although, a defection to Lab or Lib Dems at this stage would be the tonic we all need.
He noted that Dwarfish women looked very similar to men, which occasionally caused embarrassment
You’ve outdone yourself in the prattishness stakes.
Though if the Tories lose all their twats, there won’t be much left of the party.
While there will always be a market in Scotland for dour, dull, unsmiling men in suits - so Swinney may prevent collapse - he's hardly a game-changer either, so significant SNP losses are now baked in.
What the leadership succession shows is that the SNP establishment remain determined to prevent Forbes getting the crown even at the price of having to persuade Swinney to come out of semi-retirement. I imagine the plan is for Stephen Flynn ultimately to succeed after he exchanges Westminster for Holyrood in 26.
Don’t know where she got that from.
About 6,000 have been installed this year, a quarter of them rapid chargers that can power up a car in under an hour
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/05/uk-installs-record-number-of-public-electric-vehicle-chargers
It did not at all play on Burton's fondness for drink...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcaLQEUzN4Y
Whether it’s free to take home or for sale for an amount that covers the printing cost I’ve not decided yet. But certainly making the place a bit of a micro lifestyle brand will help. I also need to up my instagram game as my posts are not professional enough yet and there’s a big market for rustic barn conversion porn.