Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
I think it's time the Tories came up with some new solutions to their drug problem.
Jeez, who does he suggest for Foreign Secretary? Himmler? Idi Amin? Pol pot?
You were all over the "Elon Musk angle" when Trump was proposing big tariffs on Chinese electric cars. When Biden actually does it, it's part of a sensible and strategic foreign policy.
Because Trump's policy was incoherent. He wanted - and still wants - to hinder US production of EVs, in sharp contrast to Biden's determination to help build resilient US manufacturing.
We've discussed this us some detail today, so you ought to have taken that in.
Trump is more coherent on Chinese manufacturers using Mexico as a workaround. Biden's policy doesn't address this.
How is that coherent ? It just means more Chinese imports with a different badge.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
You were all over the "Elon Musk angle" when Trump was proposing big tariffs on Chinese electric cars. When Biden actually does it, it's part of a sensible and strategic foreign policy.
Because Trump's policy was incoherent. He wanted - and still wants - to hinder US production of EVs, in sharp contrast to Biden's determination to help build resilient US manufacturing.
We've discussed this us some detail today, so you ought to have taken that in.
Trump is more coherent on Chinese manufacturers using Mexico as a workaround. Biden's policy doesn't address this.
No, Trump just hates Mexicans. Trojan horse international trade does not come into it. Trump was pissed off with Ford manufacturing in Mexico rather than Dearborn.
As of today I don't believe mass market Chinese brands like BYD or SAIC are sold in the USA irrespective of whether they are screwed together in China or Mexico.
I don't think either Biden or Trump has a coherent China policy.
The correct thing for China to do, which will help it avoid recession, and will also help the West, is for it to allow consumer spending to rise. And the best way to enable that is for their currency to strengthen, which will have multiple positive effects.
Persuading China of the benefits of such a strategy, though, is difficult. And is made all the more difficult because everything is couched as a fight. No one takes advice from someone who wishes to smack them.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
It was stupid from Trump, and it's stupid from Biden.
Is it ? Certainly the old US auto industry needs a breathing space, or it will simply disappear. Similarly with semiconductors - multiple new plants are used construction thanks to Biden's incentives, and thus will help jump start them.
Let's see what happens next before calling it stupid.
The US auto industry was in a lot worse shape in 2007, when all the companies carried massive debt burdens. Now they are financially healthy; they just haven't adopted to the new world yet.
I don't think either Biden or Trump has a coherent China policy.
The correct thing for China to do, which will help it avoid recession, and will also help the West, is for it to allow consumer spending to rise. And the best way to enable that is for their currency to strengthen, which will have multiple positive effects.
Persuading China of the benefits of such a strategy, though, is difficult. And is made all the more difficult because everything is couched as a fight. No one takes advice from someone who wishes to smack them.
What evidence do you have that they're not allowing consumer spending ?
And why would China take advice from the US on how to run their economy ?
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
I've just realised what an interesting person and writer JG Ballard was. Hardly paid any attention to him or his work until recently. Shows how easy it is to miss things in life. This is the South Bank show featuring him from 2006.
He also wrote a lot of amazing books, over a very long period of time.
You know... I think I'm going to download some to the Kindle.
Also generated one of the great reviews by Martin Amis in the Guardian reprinted in the Moronic Inferno. I can't lay my hands on it but from memory it finished, "You finish the book slightly baffled and confused. But that is only half the story. You wait for it to haunt you. And it does."
While on the topic of SF - I remember reading a short story, maybe Ballard, maybe not, probably in the Pan collected SF stories series edited by Amis and Conquest. It was set in some sort of arid tropical zone, possibly an old military base, with animals mutating like armoured armadillos and dried out swimming pools. Can anyone identify it, please?
Pretty sure that's the story I linked to a few minutes ago - 'The Drowned World'.
Wasn't, I think - I had that myself. It was definitelyt a short story not a novel.
THanks - found it online now - that's definitely part of it. I understand the 1950s nuclear testing background much better now than I did when I was a teenager!
But I've managed to fuse it with another story with a similar ambience, same sort of harsh environment, with the local animals evolving armour against the nuclear? solar? radiation.
I don't think either Biden or Trump has a coherent China policy.
The correct thing for China to do, which will help it avoid recession, and will also help the West, is for it to allow consumer spending to rise. And the best way to enable that is for their currency to strengthen, which will have multiple positive effects.
Persuading China of the benefits of such a strategy, though, is difficult. And is made all the more difficult because everything is couched as a fight. No one takes advice from someone who wishes to smack them.
What evidence do you have that they're not allowing consumer spending ?
And why would China take advice from the US on how to run their economy ?
I think it's you that's incoherent here.
Err, I think you missed the second half of my sentence.
The Chinese economy is unbalanced today, with fixed capital expenditure and exports being too high, and consumer expenditure too low.
Let's take the UK for example, consumer spending is 62% of GDP. That's too much. A more sustainable amount is in the mid 50s - where France and Spain are. Germany, at 51%, is a little low.
China is at 37%.
To get Chinese consumers to spend, their money needs to go further. And the best way for their money to go further is for the Reminbi to strengthen. Yes, it will negatively impact China's export performance. But all the economic evidence we have is that consumer spending is more price elastic than exports. Strong currencies encourage consumers to spend money.
I also directly addressed your second point: I think getting the Chinese to take advice is going to be hard. Introducing tariffs, though, is not likely to make the Chinese think we have any concern at all for their welfare. My suggestion, that we look for something win-win may be idealistic and unrealistic, but it does at least have the advantage of not plunging the world into a tariff led recession.
Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
I think it's time the Tories came up with some new solutions to their drug problem.
Jeez, who does he suggest for Foreign Secretary? Himmler? Idi Amin? Pol pot?
I don't think either Biden or Trump has a coherent China policy.
The correct thing for China to do, which will help it avoid recession, and will also help the West, is for it to allow consumer spending to rise. And the best way to enable that is for their currency to strengthen, which will have multiple positive effects.
Persuading China of the benefits of such a strategy, though, is difficult. And is made all the more difficult because everything is couched as a fight. No one takes advice from someone who wishes to smack them.
What evidence do you have that they're not allowing consumer spending ?
And why would China take advice from the US on how to run their economy ?
I think it's you that's incoherent here.
Err, I think you missed the second half of my sentence.
The Chinese economy is unbalanced today, with fixed capital expenditure and exports being too high, and consumer expenditure too low.
Let's take the UK for example, consumer spending is 62% of GDP. That's too much. A more sustainable amount is in the mid 50s - where France and Spain are. Germany, at 51%, is a little low.
China is at 37%.
To get Chinese consumers to spend, their money needs to go further. And the best way for their money to go further is for the Reminbi to strengthen. Yes, it will negatively impact China's export performance. But all the economic evidence we have is that consumer spending is more price elastic than exports. Strong currencies encourage consumers to spend money.
I also directly addressed your second point: I think getting the Chinese to take advice is going to be hard. Introducing tariffs, though, is not likely to make the Chinese think we have any concern at all for their welfare. My suggestion, that we look for something win-win may be idealistic and unrealistic, but it does at least have the advantage of not plunging the world into a tariff led recession.
Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
I think it's time the Tories came up with some new solutions to their drug problem.
Jeez, who does he suggest for Foreign Secretary? Himmler? Idi Amin? Pol pot?
Given Mogg lives in the 19th century, Bismark?
What, and promote social security?! Never would JRM suggest such a obvious lefty.
The Duke of Wellington, maybe - though he was suspiciously moderate on the question of the Penal Laws...
Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
I think it's time the Tories came up with some new solutions to their drug problem.
Jeez, who does he suggest for Foreign Secretary? Himmler? Idi Amin? Pol pot?
Given Mogg lives in the 19th century, Bismark?
Perhaps Cecil Rhodes for Foreign Minister. Empire back in no time at all.
Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
I think it's time the Tories came up with some new solutions to their drug problem.
Jeez, who does he suggest for Foreign Secretary? Himmler? Idi Amin? Pol pot?
Given Mogg lives in the 19th century, Bismark?
What, and promote social security?! Never would JRM suggest such a obvious lefty.
The Duke of Wellington, maybe - though he was suspiciously moderate on the question of the Penal Laws...
Brunel* - his reaction to the Bristol riots made the Duke of Wellington look like Orator Hunt.
*the strange love of some lefties for Brunel is funny. He was regarded by *people at the time* as an extreme reactionary.
I don't think either Biden or Trump has a coherent China policy.
The correct thing for China to do, which will help it avoid recession, and will also help the West, is for it to allow consumer spending to rise. And the best way to enable that is for their currency to strengthen, which will have multiple positive effects.
Persuading China of the benefits of such a strategy, though, is difficult. And is made all the more difficult because everything is couched as a fight. No one takes advice from someone who wishes to smack them.
What evidence do you have that they're not allowing consumer spending ?
And why would China take advice from the US on how to run their economy ?
I think it's you that's incoherent here.
Err, I think you missed the second half of my sentence.
The Chinese economy is unbalanced today, with fixed capital expenditure and exports being too high, and consumer expenditure too low.
Let's take the UK for example, consumer spending is 62% of GDP. That's too much. A more sustainable amount is in the mid 50s - where France and Spain are. Germany, at 51%, is a little low.
China is at 37%.
To get Chinese consumers to spend, their money needs to go further. And the best way for their money to go further is for the Reminbi to strengthen. Yes, it will negatively impact China's export performance. But all the economic evidence we have is that consumer spending is more price elastic than exports. Strong currencies encourage consumers to spend money.
I also directly addressed your second point: I think getting the Chinese to take advice is going to be hard. Introducing tariffs, though, is not likely to make the Chinese think we have any concern at all for their welfare. My suggestion, that we look for something win-win may be idealistic and unrealistic, but it does at least have the advantage of not plunging the world into a tariff led recession.
I've just realised what an interesting person and writer JG Ballard was. Hardly paid any attention to him or his work until recently. Shows how easy it is to miss things in life. This is the South Bank show featuring him from 2006.
He also wrote a lot of amazing books, over a very long period of time.
You know... I think I'm going to download some to the Kindle.
Also generated one of the great reviews by Martin Amis in the Guardian reprinted in the Moronic Inferno. I can't lay my hands on it but from memory it finished, "You finish the book slightly baffled and confused. But that is only half the story. You wait for it to haunt you. And it does."
While on the topic of SF - I remember reading a short story, maybe Ballard, maybe not, probably in the Pan collected SF stories series edited by Amis and Conquest. It was set in some sort of arid tropical zone, possibly an old military base, with animals mutating like armoured armadillos and dried out swimming pools. Can anyone identify it, please?
Pretty sure that's the story I linked to a few minutes ago - 'The Drowned World'.
Wasn't, I think - I had that myself. It was definitelyt a short story not a novel.
THanks - found it online now - that's definitely part of it. I understand the 1950s nuclear testing background much better now than I did when I was a teenager!
But I've managed to fuse it with another story with a similar ambience, same sort of harsh environment, with the local animals evolving armour against the nuclear? solar? radiation.
The 1977 film Damnation Alley was based on the book by Roger Zelazny (which I haven't read but the film scared me witless when I watched it aged 11 or 12, and set me up nicely for Threads 4 years later). Armoured and mutated animals featured heavily in both!
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
Conservative MPs nervous about another potential defection tomorrow at PMQs, rightly or wrongly
If the rip roaring success of last week is anything to go by Starmer will be introducing the new Labour MP for South Holland and the Deepings
It's when he introduces the new Labour member for Richmond (Yorks) that the popcorn shortage becomes a crisis.
Rumour has it that Nokes is on defection watch.
Caroline Nokes strikes me as a very agreeable moderate. The decent pathway is the Temple -Morris route. Cross to Independent and then dovetail into the Labour Party when the dust settles.
Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
I think it's time the Tories came up with some new solutions to their drug problem.
Jeez, who does he suggest for Foreign Secretary? Himmler? Idi Amin? Pol pot?
Is he trying to undermine Sunak?
If Reform really were an opposition party, this would be obvious ammunition for them. "Even the Tories know we'd be better than them at running the country." They're not, though.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
She is unbearable, but do many people pay much attention to her anymore? I’ve found it pretty easy to avoid her ever being on my telly since she dropped off the News at Ten. Granted she is on at some ungodly hour on Sundays when no one with any life is watching.
But, I do agree with you that she is unbearable. She is also hopeless.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
I think it's time the Tories came up with some new solutions to their drug problem.
Jeez, who does he suggest for Foreign Secretary? Himmler? Idi Amin? Pol pot?
Is he trying to undermine Sunak?
If Reform really were an opposition party, this would be obvious ammunition for them. "Even the Tories know we'd be better than them at running the country." They're not, though.
Or Nigel Farage could say "I'd be delighted to have you in the cabinet if we fail to win a majority and your party holds the balance, Jacob, always assuming you keep your seat. You haven't achieved much in politics so far, but I think you've got potential, my man. You're not exactly a man of the people, but look at my face - have I ever been prejudiced against Old Etonian hedge fund managers?"
Dare I ask what Leon did this time. Was it talking about this Al fella again?
What happened to Leon' amazing splash news?
I assume he was talking about OpenRedacted's Redacted-Redactedo, announced yesterday. Or DeepRedacted's Redactedeo or Redactedi, both announced today.
All interesting incremental improvements (although Redacted-Redactedo's 'Over-enthusiastic Intern' mode goes very deep into uncanny valley territory). Not sure that any of them were entirely worthy of Leon's hype.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
She is unbearable, but do many people pay much attention to her anymore? I’ve found it pretty easy to avoid her ever being on my telly since she dropped off the News at Ten. Granted she is on at some ungodly hour on Sundays when no one with any life is watching.
But, I do agree with you that she is unbearable. She is also hopeless.
Indeed. When you think of Charles Wheeler, Mark Tully or even Kirsty Wark... she is the kind of person local radio would have disposed of...
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
She is unbearable, but do many people pay much attention to her anymore? I’ve found it pretty easy to avoid her ever being on my telly since she dropped off the News at Ten. Granted she is on at some ungodly hour on Sundays when no one with any life is watching.
But, I do agree with you that she is unbearable. She is also hopeless.
Tubbs was suggesting the BBC are impartial. I say currently that is bollocks. Kuennsberg is a fixture of the client media. Who does she work for and who does she speak for?
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
Granted, the BBC is sometimes critical of SKS. I don't think that changes the fact that on balance it leans heavily left. And I am confident that when Labour come in, it will largely criticise them from the left.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
I've just realised what an interesting person and writer JG Ballard was. Hardly paid any attention to him or his work until recently. Shows how easy it is to miss things in life. This is the South Bank show featuring him from 2006.
He also wrote a lot of amazing books, over a very long period of time.
You know... I think I'm going to download some to the Kindle.
Also generated one of the great reviews by Martin Amis in the Guardian reprinted in the Moronic Inferno. I can't lay my hands on it but from memory it finished, "You finish the book slightly baffled and confused. But that is only half the story. You wait for it to haunt you. And it does."
While on the topic of SF - I remember reading a short story, maybe Ballard, maybe not, probably in the Pan collected SF stories series edited by Amis and Conquest. It was set in some sort of arid tropical zone, possibly an old military base, with animals mutating like armoured armadillos and dried out swimming pools. Can anyone identify it, please?
Pretty sure that's the story I linked to a few minutes ago - 'The Drowned World'.
Wasn't, I think - I had that myself. It was definitelyt a short story not a novel.
THanks - found it online now - that's definitely part of it. I understand the 1950s nuclear testing background much better now than I did when I was a teenager!
But I've managed to fuse it with another story with a similar ambience, same sort of harsh environment, with the local animals evolving armour against the nuclear? solar? radiation.
The 1977 film Damnation Alley was based on the book by Roger Zelazny (which I haven't read but the film scared me witless when I watched it aged 11 or 12, and set me up nicely for Threads 4 years later). Armoured and mutated animals featured heavily in both!
Still not that! Much more meditative story than that. Thanks anyway!
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
She is unbearable, but do many people pay much attention to her anymore? I’ve found it pretty easy to avoid her ever being on my telly since she dropped off the News at Ten. Granted she is on at some ungodly hour on Sundays when no one with any life is watching.
But, I do agree with you that she is unbearable. She is also hopeless.
Tubbs was suggesting the BBC are impartial. I say currently that is bollocks. Kuennsberg is a fixture of the client media. Who does she work for and who does she speak for?
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
Pretty much a non-story. Of course he “fears” it. His party are a disunited rabble of three wings that agree on almost nothing. Clearly there is a worry there. Doesn’t mean anyone else will turn.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
The BBC takes it cue from the right-wing dominated print media.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Special guest in Essex? Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and Mark Francois are all Essex MPs. No thanks.
Pretty much a non-story. Of course he “fears” it. His party are a disunited rabble of three wings that agree on almost nothing. Clearly there is a worry there. Doesn’t mean anyone else will turn.
Expectations management? If there is a defection tomorrow, it will be less exciting.
If there isn't, it looks like a (very very minor) victory for Sunak.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
Speaking on @GBNEWS tonight@Jacob_Rees_Mogg has called for senior members of Reform UK to be Conservative Party candidates at the next election, with Nigel Farage being made Home Secretary should the Conservatives win at the next election.
But what happens when the "one nation" Tories all up and leave?
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
Granted, the BBC is sometimes critical of SKS. I don't think that changes the fact that on balance it leans heavily left. And I am confident that when Labour come in, it will largely criticise them from the left.
I don't dispute that they BBC has a liberal metropolitan bias - but that wasn't my point.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
The BBC takes it cue from the right-wing dominated print media.
Indeed. Did we ever get to the bottom of RAYNERGATE by the way?
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
I tend to agree with you, but the same could be said about most of the trad media.
The biggest issue with the BBC is that it's dying. What's the point of fulminating about Kuennsberg when most people will never read one of her stories?
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
Is that the prospect magazine that the BBC views as left leaning?
Rusbridger is a straight as a die centrist. A former editor of a Fourth Estate title no less.
Perhaps this is the issue? If you are left of the BBC you see it as right wing. (See also Heathener). If you are on the right you think it’s the home of all the socialists.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
Granted, the BBC is sometimes critical of SKS. I don't think that changes the fact that on balance it leans heavily left. And I am confident that when Labour come in, it will largely criticise them from the left.
I don't dispute that they BBC has a liberal metropolitan bias - but that wasn't my point.
Yoir point appeared to be that the media is biased towards the Conservatives. To which my response is a)perhaps the print media is, but the print media is now jist background noise, and b) the non-print media - which in this country is mainly the BBC, though Sky, ITN, are also relevant - skews heavily leftwards. (I notive this less with ITN, I'd say), and c) this isn't just a matter of favouring one party or the other, and many of the criticisms of Labour are criticisms from the left.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Special guest in Essex? Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and Mark Francois are all Essex MPs. No thanks.
Georgia from Love Island? There have been rumours…
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
You were all over the "Elon Musk angle" when Trump was proposing big tariffs on Chinese electric cars. When Biden actually does it, it's part of a sensible and strategic foreign policy.
Because Trump's policy was incoherent. He wanted - and still wants - to hinder US production of EVs, in sharp contrast to Biden's determination to help build resilient US manufacturing.
We've discussed this us some detail today, so you ought to have taken that in.
Trump is more coherent on Chinese manufacturers using Mexico as a workaround. Biden's policy doesn't address this.
No, Trump just hates Mexicans. Trojan horse international trade does not come into it. Trump was pissed off with Ford manufacturing in Mexico rather than Dearborn.
As of today I don't believe mass market Chinese brands like BYD or SAIC are sold in the USA irrespective of whether they are screwed together in China or Mexico.
Well he'd be doing them a big favour if he got China to help them build an EV manufacturing base from which to export into the US.
But he's not the sharpest tool, even among the octogenarian tendency.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
It remarkable how many BBC Journalists have left the Corporation to be Conservative SPADs and candidates. Guto Harri and Clarence Mitchell are two I can think of, off the top of my head.
Historically the BBC too impartiality to absurdly comedic levels.
Now seems different. Johnson bought the BBC for the Tories.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
It remarkable how many BBC Journalists have left the Corporation to be Conservative SPADs and SPADs and candidates. Guto Harri and Clarence Mitchell are two I can think of, off the top of my head.
Historically the BBC too impartiality to absurdly comedic levels.
Now seems different. Johnson bought the BBC for the Tories.
I don’t see it, sorry. I think using the cenotaph flap as evidence of bias is thin gruel.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Tony Blair? Barrack Obama?
Well it is our diamond wedding anniversary day but we haven't been invited but why worry when the King and Queen, no less, are sending us a personal congratulations card !!!!
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
It remarkable how many BBC Journalists have left the Corporation to be Conservative SPADs and SPADs and candidates. Guto Harri and Clarence Mitchell are two I can think of, off the top of my head.
Historically the BBC too impartiality to absurdly comedic levels.
Now seems different. Johnson bought the BBC for the Tories.
I don’t see it, sorry. I think using the cenotaph flap as evidence of bias is thin gruel.
Well I am trying to help you and Cookie out with compelling evidence, but if you both can't see it, I'm sorry but I'm wasting my time.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
It remarkable how many BBC Journalists have left the Corporation to be Conservative SPADs and SPADs and candidates. Guto Harri and Clarence Mitchell are two I can think of, off the top of my head.
Historically the BBC too impartiality to absurdly comedic levels.
Now seems different. Johnson bought the BBC for the Tories.
I don’t see it, sorry. I think using the cenotaph flap as evidence of bias is thin gruel.
Well I am trying to help you and Cookie out with compelling evidence, but if you both can't see it, I'm sorry but I'm wasting my time.
Good night.
I’ve not seen any compelling evidence! I think your radar is finely calibrated, but might need a tweak.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Tony Blair? Barrack Obama?
Well it is our diamond wedding anniversary day but we haven't been invited but why worry when the King and Queen, no less, are sending us a personal congratulations card !!!!
Oh wow! Congrats to you and Mrs G. 🥂
Are you planning to celebrate? Hope you both have a lovely day.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Special guest in Essex? Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and Mark Francois are all Essex MPs. No thanks.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Tony Blair? Barrack Obama?
Well it is our diamond wedding anniversary day but we haven't been invited but why worry when the King and Queen, no less, are sending us a personal congratulations card !!!!
Oh wow! Congrats to you and Mrs G. 🥂
Are you planning to celebrate? Hope you both have a lovely day.
Thank you and yes our son and his wife are flying in from Vancouver and our niece, husband, daughter and partner are coming from the North of Scotland to join the rest of our family for cake and drinks on Saturday and Sunday lunch at a leading hotel in Llandudno
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
Tony Blair? Barrack Obama?
Well it is our diamond wedding anniversary day but we haven't been invited but why worry when the King and Queen, no less, are sending us a personal congratulations card !!!!
Oh wow! Congrats to you and Mrs G. 🥂
Are you planning to celebrate? Hope you both have a lovely day.
Thank you and yes our son and his wife are flying in from Vancouver and our niece, husband, daughter and partner are coming from the North of Scotland to join the rest of our family for cake and drinks on Saturday and Sunday lunch at a leading hotel in Llandudno
Ooo that sounds amazing. I hope you all have a wonderful time.
I've just realised what an interesting person and writer JG Ballard was. Hardly paid any attention to him or his work until recently. Shows how easy it is to miss things in life. This is the South Bank show featuring him from 2006.
He also wrote a lot of amazing books, over a very long period of time.
You know... I think I'm going to download some to the Kindle.
Also generated one of the great reviews by Martin Amis in the Guardian reprinted in the Moronic Inferno. I can't lay my hands on it but from memory it finished, "You finish the book slightly baffled and confused. But that is only half the story. You wait for it to haunt you. And it does."
While on the topic of SF - I remember reading a short story, maybe Ballard, maybe not, probably in the Pan collected SF stories series edited by Amis and Conquest. It was set in some sort of arid tropical zone, possibly an old military base, with animals mutating like armoured armadillos and dried out swimming pools. Can anyone identify it, please?
Pretty sure that's the story I linked to a few minutes ago - 'The Drowned World'.
Wasn't, I think - I had that myself. It was definitelyt a short story not a novel.
THanks - found it online now - that's definitely part of it. I understand the 1950s nuclear testing background much better now than I did when I was a teenager!
But I've managed to fuse it with another story with a similar ambience, same sort of harsh environment, with the local animals evolving armour against the nuclear? solar? radiation.
That's definitely part of 'The Drowned World' (as I remember). Lots of semi-dinosaur lizard-like creatures 're-evolving' as the climate changes post 'the event'.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
It remarkable how many BBC Journalists have left the Corporation to be Conservative SPADs and SPADs and candidates. Guto Harri and Clarence Mitchell are two I can think of, off the top of my head.
Historically the BBC too impartiality to absurdly comedic levels.
Now seems different. Johnson bought the BBC for the Tories.
I don’t see it, sorry. I think using the cenotaph flap as evidence of bias is thin gruel.
Well I am trying to help you and Cookie out with compelling evidence, but if you both can't see it, I'm sorry but I'm wasting my time.
Good night.
I’ve not seen any compelling evidence! I think your radar is finely calibrated, but might need a tweak.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
No, "conditions" was a typo from my phone keyboard. It has an annoying habit of changing words in arrears, because it doesn't agree with my erratic use of grammar. It should be "contortions".
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
I don't think that's true.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
Yeah, I know those people exist. I'm talking about the political debate as framed by the national media.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
The media landscape you describe isn't one I recognise. Have you heard of the BBC? And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
What is your issue with that? It’s nothing that posters on PB haven’t suggested.
You were making an assertion that the BBC are non-partisan. I am suggesting that this is not the case. The second reference I make relates to a debate where Kuenssberg in conversation with the hopeless Paddy O'Connell tears into Starmer with vitriolic abandon. The BBC then gaslights the complainants with a reference to Starmer and football rather than Kuennsberg's character assassination of Starmer.
I think you have another poster in mind. FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography? I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles. But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
This is where he might blow it. He's going to welcome Baroness Mone into the Labour party and Carol Vorderman will be so disgusted that she starts supporting the Tories again.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
This is where he might blow it. He's going to welcome Baroness Mone into the Labour party and Carol Vorderman will be so disgusted that she starts supporting the Tories again.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
This is where he might blow it. He's going to welcome Baroness Mone into the Labour party and Carol Vorderman will be so disgusted that she starts supporting the Tories again.
Like a double volte face from both of them.
Let's hope they don't collide on their respective return journeys.
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
F***! HYUFD is defecting to Labour?
Ha ha, no sadly not. Definitely not Dame Eleanor either or Alex Burghardt.
Outside bet Jackie Doyle Price in Thurrock, a seat Labour are odds on to gain and who is relatively moderate?
Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
F***! HYUFD is defecting to Labour?
Ha ha, no sadly not. Definitely not Dame Eleanor either or Alex Burghardt.
Outside bet Jackie Doyle Price in Thurrock, a seat Labour are odds on to gain and who is relatively moderate?
Technically no longer Essex, but Duncan-Smith? Momentum would explode, as might Duncan Smith.
I think I finally persuaded rcs1000 that the US had, for a couple of years under George W. Bush, a TFR above 2.1. (Please correct me if I am wrong on that.)
As for life expectancy in the US, here's the key paragraph from Wiki: "The average life expectancy in the United States has been on a decline since 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites three main reasons: a 72% increase in overdoses in the last decade (including a 30% increase in opioid overdoses from July 2016 to September 2017, but did not differentiate between accidental overdose with a legal prescription and overdose with opioids obtained illegally and/or combined with illegal drugs i.e., heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.), a ten-year increase in liver disease (the rate for men age 25 to 34 increased by 8% per year; for women, by 11% per year), and a 33% increase in suicide rates since 1999." (Links omitted.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
The state laws on guns and automobiles did not change significantly in the years when US life expectancy began to decline. What did change was an increase in alcohol abuse, and, most of all, deaths from opiods, legal and illegal.
There was a precedent for this. When the crack epidemic hit the US in the 1980s, life expectancy declined for black males, (It had been increasing, and black men had been gaining faster than white men.) From what I can tell, Barack Obama learned nothing from that history.
Bonus question: When did the life expectancy for black women in the US pass life expectancy for white men?
I think I finally persuaded rcs1000 that the US had, for a couple of years under George W. Bush, a TFR above 2.1. (Please correct me if I am wrong on that.)
As for life expectancy in the US, here's the key paragraph from Wiki: "The average life expectancy in the United States has been on a decline since 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites three main reasons: a 72% increase in overdoses in the last decade (including a 30% increase in opioid overdoses from July 2016 to September 2017, but did not differentiate between accidental overdose with a legal prescription and overdose with opioids obtained illegally and/or combined with illegal drugs i.e., heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.), a ten-year increase in liver disease (the rate for men age 25 to 34 increased by 8% per year; for women, by 11% per year), and a 33% increase in suicide rates since 1999." (Links omitted.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
The state laws on guns and automobiles did not change significantly in the years when US life expectancy began to decline. What did change was an increase in alcohol abuse, and, most of all, deaths from opiods, legal and illegal.
There was a precedent for this. When the crack epidemic hit the US in the 1980s, life expectancy declined for black males, (It had been increasing, and black men had been gaining faster than white men.) From what I can tell, Barack Obama learned nothing from that history.
Bonus question: When did the life expectancy for black women in the US pass life expectancy for white men?
It's interesting that this overdose problem seems to have happened so much more seriously in the United States than any other western country. It does exist in Canada, UK, Australia, etc, but on a much smaller scale than in the USA. Why is that?
Andy_JS asked: It's interesting that this overdose problem seems to have happened so much more seriously in the United States than any other western country. It does exist in Canada, UK, Australia, etc, but on a much smaller scale than in the USA. Why is that?"
Andy, I can only offer you speculations, since I don't have details on what other nations did. Family and community decline may have advanced further in the US, than in other western nations. Other nations did not have leaders who admitted/boasted about their drug use as young men. Other nations did not have the Sacklers. Other nations were not the pinrcipal target of the ChiComs. The US has more money to spend on recreation, including drugs. And I could add others.
But, let me repeat, those are just speculations. You might get some insights by looking at the variations within the US, especially between states like Texas and California.
West Virginia Republican Primary with 11% reporting
Donald J. Trump 21,921 84.7% 32 Nikki Haley 3,298 12.7% No delegates— Rachel Swift 335 1.3%
SSI - This is with about 2/3 of votes counted in Monongalia Co (Morgantown > WV University) likely one of Haley's better counties where she currently is getting 18%. No votes yet reported from Kanawha Co (Charleston) or other larger counties.
Jim Justice, current Gov of WVa, is running for Republican nomination for US Senate, and currently has 60.8% of GOP primary vote, with 15% reporting; AP has called the race.
Much tighter contest in Republican primary for Governor, open seat to replace Justice.
Patrick Morrisey (state Attorney General) 13,292 33.9%33.9% Moore Capito (former state legislator, son of US Senator Shelley Moore Capito) 11,225 28.6% Chris Miller (former acting US Defense Secretary under Trump) 7,235 18.5%
Regarding current West Virginia Republican primary candidate for Governor, Patrick Morrisey, from his wiki bio:
From 2004 to 2012, Morrisey worked as a lawyer in Washington D.C. He was a partner at the corporate law firm Sidley Austin before he joined King & Spalding in 2010, becoming a partner. As a lobbyist, he was viewed as an expert on health and drug-related regulations and legislation. He was paid $250,000 to lobby on behalf of a pharmaceutical trade group. The group was funded by some of the same opioid distributors that West Virginia sued for flooding the state with opioids. . . .
[As state attorney general] Morrisey sued the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release its data on opioid sales, and about the sales quota system that it uses to regulate opioid manufacturers, the first ever such lawsuit in West Virginia history. He placed a hold on the lawsuit after successfully negotiating with the Trump administration to have the DEA reconsider whether or not to amend the aggregate quota system.
Comments
It just means more Chinese imports with a different badge.
it is fair that there are some people who will always say that the Tories are always wrong, but they have a relatively fringe role in British political debate. And so I think the debate as a whole is dominated by those who interpret everything through the prism of Labour always wrong.
As of today I don't believe mass market Chinese brands like BYD or SAIC are sold in the USA irrespective of whether they are screwed together in China or Mexico.
The correct thing for China to do, which will help it avoid recession, and will also help the West, is for it to allow consumer spending to rise. And the best way to enable that is for their currency to strengthen, which will have multiple positive effects.
Persuading China of the benefits of such a strategy, though, is difficult. And is made all the more difficult because everything is couched as a fight. No one takes advice from someone who wishes to smack them.
Remember there are real people who go around with T-Shirts saying they've "Never Kissed A Tory".
And why would China take advice from the US on how to run their economy ?
I think it's you that's incoherent here.
Perhaps it's just been a long time since Labour were in government, and what I'm thinking of is a product of some of the media being overly deferential to the party of government. But I have my doubts.
But I've managed to fuse it with another story with a similar ambience, same sort of harsh environment, with the local animals evolving armour against the nuclear? solar? radiation.
The Chinese economy is unbalanced today, with fixed capital expenditure and exports being too high, and consumer expenditure too low.
Let's take the UK for example, consumer spending is 62% of GDP. That's too much. A more sustainable amount is in the mid 50s - where France and Spain are. Germany, at 51%, is a little low.
China is at 37%.
To get Chinese consumers to spend, their money needs to go further. And the best way for their money to go further is for the Reminbi to strengthen. Yes, it will negatively impact China's export performance. But all the economic evidence we have is that consumer spending is more price elastic than exports. Strong currencies encourage consumers to spend money.
I also directly addressed your second point: I think getting the Chinese to take advice is going to be hard. Introducing tariffs, though, is not likely to make the Chinese think we have any concern at all for their welfare. My suggestion, that we look for something win-win may be idealistic and unrealistic, but it does at least have the advantage of not plunging the world into a tariff led recession.
The Duke of Wellington, maybe - though he was suspiciously moderate on the question of the Penal Laws...
https://x.com/ostapyarysh/status/1790454002263482450
*the strange love of some lefties for Brunel is funny. He was regarded by *people at the time* as an extreme reactionary.
And yes, I recognise that there is still a right wing print media. But the importance of the print media nowadays is a tiny fraction of what it was 30 years ago.
https://youtu.be/ET5drt_utUY?si=Btg0MyR_IO5YO9vK
If Reform really were an opposition party, this would be obvious ammunition for them. "Even the Tories know we'd be better than them at running the country." They're not, though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68995187.amp
Or perhaps this;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/lkkeirstramercomments
Who who who who.
But, I do agree with you that she is unbearable. She is also hopeless.
Interesting choice.
ELPHICKE
All interesting incremental improvements (although Redacted-Redactedo's 'Over-enthusiastic Intern' mode goes very deep into uncanny valley territory). Not sure that any of them were entirely worthy of Leon's hype.
Aubrey Allegretti
@breeallegretti
Labour is planning a secretive event with Keir Starmer and a “special guest” in Essex on Thursday.
I’m told it’s been long in the planning.
Sources suggest it’s viewed as a key pre-manifesto moment, with Starmer to flesh out his five missions and launch a 1997-style pledge card. But no comment from the party tonight.
Even shadow cabinet ministers have been kept in the dark about details - they’re expected to be told tomorrow.
And I am confident that when Labour come in, it will largely criticise them from the left.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced, and I suspect a bit of heat on Starmer is part of that. What do you want, hagiography?
I think the bias that the BBC has reflects its staff. It tends to be liberal, metropolitan, fairly woke, whatever that means. I don’t think it really gets large swathes of the countryside, and probably not much idea of true working class struggles.
But I don’t think it is biased to the Tories.
Wow.
Just wow.
@christopherhope
·
1h
EXCLUSIVE
Rishi Sunak fears new defection to Labour in just HOURS after being caught off-guard last week
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/rishi-sunak-defection-labour-natalie-elphicke-dan-poulter
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/64534/how-the-government-captured-the-bbc
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGeCxq8ye/
Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and Mark Francois are all Essex MPs.
No thanks.
If there isn't, it looks like a (very very minor) victory for Sunak.
The biggest issue with the BBC is that it's dying. What's the point of fulminating about Kuennsberg when most people will never read one of her stories?
To which my response is a)perhaps the print media is, but the print media is now jist background noise, and
b) the non-print media - which in this country is mainly the BBC, though Sky, ITN, are also relevant - skews heavily leftwards. (I notive this less with ITN, I'd say),
and c) this isn't just a matter of favouring one party or the other, and many of the criticisms of Labour are criticisms from the left.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/27895667/love-island-georgia-harrison-anton-danyluk-baftas/
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/who-georgia-harrison-love-island-labour-mp-b1115251.html
But he's not the sharpest tool, even among the octogenarian tendency.
Davie has hijacked the BBC for the Tories, although all was not well prior to his elevation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-boris-johnson-brexit-wreath-laying-cenotaph-footage-wrong-old-tory-bias-a9198521.html
It remarkable how many BBC Journalists have left the Corporation to be Conservative SPADs and candidates. Guto Harri and Clarence Mitchell are two I can think of, off the top of my head.
Historically the BBC too impartiality to absurdly comedic levels.
Now seems different. Johnson bought the BBC for the Tories.
Good night.
Are you planning to celebrate? Hope you both have a lovely day.
Good night... again.
https://x.com/jonlis1/status/1790339902007378300?s=46
Let's hope they don't collide on their respective return journeys.
Outside bet Jackie Doyle Price in Thurrock, a seat Labour are odds on to gain and who is relatively moderate?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/qnLLpZgBW92dSrV2mmGyCb/new-order-timeless-style-blue-monday-recorded-with-instruments-from-the-1930s
As for life expectancy in the US, here's the key paragraph from Wiki:
"The average life expectancy in the United States has been on a decline since 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites three main reasons: a 72% increase in overdoses in the last decade (including a 30% increase in opioid overdoses from July 2016 to September 2017, but did not differentiate between accidental overdose with a legal prescription and overdose with opioids obtained illegally and/or combined with illegal drugs i.e., heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.), a ten-year increase in liver disease (the rate for men age 25 to 34 increased by 8% per year; for women, by 11% per year), and a 33% increase in suicide rates since 1999."
(Links omitted.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
The state laws on guns and automobiles did not change significantly in the years when US life expectancy began to decline. What did change was an increase in alcohol abuse, and, most of all, deaths from opiods, legal and illegal.
There was a precedent for this. When the crack epidemic hit the US in the 1980s, life expectancy declined for black males, (It had been increasing, and black men had been gaining faster than white men.) From what I can tell, Barack Obama learned nothing from that history.
Bonus question: When did the life expectancy for black women in the US pass life expectancy for white men?
Andy, I can only offer you speculations, since I don't have details on what other nations did. Family and community decline may have advanced further in the US, than in other western nations. Other nations did not have leaders who admitted/boasted about their drug use as young men. Other nations did not have the Sacklers. Other nations were not the pinrcipal target of the ChiComs. The US has more money to spend on recreation, including drugs. And I could add others.
But, let me repeat, those are just speculations. You might get some insights by looking at the variations within the US, especially between states like Texas and California.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13418727/jimmy-carter-grandson-president-health-update.html
with 11% reporting
Donald J. Trump
21,921 84.7%
32
Nikki Haley
3,298 12.7%
No delegates—
Rachel Swift
335 1.3%
SSI - This is with about 2/3 of votes counted in Monongalia Co (Morgantown > WV University) likely one of Haley's better counties where she currently is getting 18%. No votes yet reported from Kanawha Co (Charleston) or other larger counties.
Jim Justice, current Gov of WVa, is running for Republican nomination for US Senate, and currently has 60.8% of GOP primary vote, with 15% reporting; AP has called the race.
Much tighter contest in Republican primary for Governor, open seat to replace Justice.
Patrick Morrisey (state Attorney General)
13,292 33.9%33.9%
Moore Capito (former state legislator, son of US Senator Shelley Moore Capito)
11,225 28.6%
Chris Miller (former acting US Defense Secretary under Trump)
7,235 18.5%
with 9% counted (source NYT)
Donald J. Trump
21,688 73.7% = 37 delegates
Nikki Haley
7,733 26.3% = 0 delegates
From 2004 to 2012, Morrisey worked as a lawyer in Washington D.C. He was a partner at the corporate law firm Sidley Austin before he joined King & Spalding in 2010, becoming a partner. As a lobbyist, he was viewed as an expert on health and drug-related regulations and legislation. He was paid $250,000 to lobby on behalf of a pharmaceutical trade group. The group was funded by some of the same opioid distributors that West Virginia sued for flooding the state with opioids. . . .
[As state attorney general] Morrisey sued the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release its data on opioid sales, and about the sales quota system that it uses to regulate opioid manufacturers, the first ever such lawsuit in West Virginia history. He placed a hold on the lawsuit after successfully negotiating with the Trump administration to have the DEA reconsider whether or not to amend the aggregate quota system.