Howdy, Stranger!

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

It has been an inauspicious start to the campaign for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

1235789

Comments

  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    Get that daft woman with the spider brooch to undo it
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,889
    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    A safe pair of hands.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    I found myself rewatching Series 1 of House of Cards again last night - US not UK, the latter being before my time.

    If you can get past the question marks surrounding Kevin Spacey then I’d forgotten just what a fantastic piece of political drama it is, especially in the early stages.

    All the Machiavellian chthonic depths of political life right there.

    Perfect viewing for an election campaign ;)

    It is but its a complete copy of the UK version which was sublime
    Wasn’t Michael Dobbs involved on both?

    I like the high production standards on the US one, and the fab music in the title sequence, but maybe I should try and get hold of the UK one?
    yes , all the same stuff is there , the explaining to camera , the loyal ruthless wife ,the (eventually murdered) young journalist.
    Yep, just with a delightfully 80s British vibe. Definitely worth a watch for anyone who hasn't seen it.

    I also enjoy the 80s version of 'A Very British Coup' for the same reason. Though to throw a grenade in the room, I do sometimes wonder if they used the same technique on Truss as they tried on Harry Perkins (crash the economy to try to force an immediate resignation). Then I think no, Truss managed that all by herself...
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,849
    The Tories might as well throw everything at the wall now and try and bribe the pensioners. It’s all they really have left now - throw all the policies at the wall and hope enough of them stick that they can scrabble together a decent loss.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,307

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
    And they've already banked the proceeds from continuing to freeze allowances unto the far horizon in order to meet the fiscal rule.

    The government can't even afford the paper to write a "there's no money left" note on. (One of the reasons for not hanging round until the autumn is the non-trivial risk that an OBR report would tell to increase taxes.)
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    dixiedean said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    What's disturbing is I can't decide if that is someone being mischievously satirical or not.
    well there used to be an age related allowance (for pensioners) and it was the tories that took it away
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,854
    Roger said:

    Does anyone doubt that Netanyahu and his thugs are irredeemable monsters who don't care a fig for any life that doesn't belong to an Israeli?

    Channel 4 News is unwatchable

    https://x.com/johncusack/status/1794923952638247316

    Netanyahu cares for Israeli's? Possibly the dozen or so he needs to stay in power and out of jail, but the rest of them?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,970

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    The frozen personal allowances mean that HMRC are increasingly having to write to bemused pensioners who only get the State Pension, telling them to pay some tax (and online is the only easy way to do that, which goes down well with the target demographic).
    The state pension is still below the personal allowance, and will be for a year or so more. They must be getting something in addition.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    It’s not going to be reduced to 1997 levels though. Sure, the Tories might lose some seats, but this is the nadir of their campaign and they’re still in it. I reckon we’ll see average 5% Tory leads this time next month and a small but serviceable majority off the back of them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760

    dixiedean said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    What's disturbing is I can't decide if that is someone being mischievously satirical or not.
    well there used to be an age related allowance (for pensioners) and it was the tories that took it away
    There is an age-related allowance. It's called 'no NI'.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,624
    pm215 said:

    Taz said:
    Could the Telegraph be trying to nudge older voters away from voting Labour?
    Part of the "L is for Labour, L is for Lice" school of political messaging.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,196

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    We are already pushing the edge of the probability envelope, thank you... :(
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760
    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,854

    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    A safe pair of hands.
    It's almost her middle name...

    image
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.

    But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.

    They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,879

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    What do they mean by that? The personal allowance for pensioners stays at £12,570 forever more?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,032
    edited May 27
    RobD said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    The frozen personal allowances mean that HMRC are increasingly having to write to bemused pensioners who only get the State Pension, telling them to pay some tax (and online is the only easy way to do that, which goes down well with the target demographic).
    The state pension is still below the personal allowance, and will be for a year or so more. They must be getting something in addition.
    Could be second state pension.

    The real issue is that DWP don't have to do what every other pension provider or employer does - tax at source.

    Bastards still don't provide a P60, even.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    edited May 27
    Farage challenges Sunak to a debate on immigration.

    Absolute open goal for Sunak 'I am not debating someone who is too scared of the electorate to stand for parliament'

    Edit- obviously Rishi will Ronnie Rosenthal it

    Double edit - but it's his chance to make Farage look a total no mark clown
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,062

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    I read a quote once which went something like: in 400AD somebody living in what is now Newcastle could prepare a salad with a vinaigrette dressing, and then lost the skill for the next millennia-and-a-half.
    But they didn't have avocados did they? Hah - that settles it!
    They did have a single European currency though :smirk:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,032

    dixiedean said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    What's disturbing is I can't decide if that is someone being mischievously satirical or not.
    well there used to be an age related allowance (for pensioners) and it was the tories that took it away
    There is an age-related allowance. It's called 'no NI'.
    There still is an IT allowance. But it's a bit of a relic.

    https://www.gov.uk/tax-national-insurance-after-state-pension-age/agerelated-tax-allowances
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760
    edited May 27
    RobD said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    The frozen personal allowances mean that HMRC are increasingly having to write to bemused pensioners who only get the State Pension, telling them to pay some tax (and online is the only easy way to do that, which goes down well with the target demographic).
    The state pension is still below the personal allowance, and will be for a year or so more. They must be getting something in addition.
    No, it's people on old-style state pension with an earnings-related element.

    Those with a private pension + state pension can (will) have the tax deducted from the personal pension but for some reason DWP are not capable of operating PAYE on the state pension.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    boulay said:

    nico679 said:

    boulay said:

    nico679 said:

    More sycophantic reporting from the BBC reporter following Sunak around . She’s not there to call Sunaks national service plan bold .

    Don’t these reporters realize that another 5 years of the Tories will spell the end of the BBC .

    So the BBC should be campaigning against the Tories and not “neutral”? I guess it’s a way to guarantee the end of the BBC. Would it be better if they just said what you agree with politically?
    I expect the BBC to be neutral . Not arse lick Sunak and give him an easier ride .
    Pretty much every post you make in PB is a short rant about how awful the Tories are. Lots of heat, zero light. No insight just shouty bollocks. You will never be happy unless the BBC journalists are shouting “tories out”, “Tory scum” or “Nico isn’t a vacuous anti-Tory simpleton”. It’s a view but their mandate requires them to be a little less simplistic and one sided.
    Well the current bunch of Tories are awful and most people hate them. So it’s hardly a controversial opinion ! You’re the one resorting to personal jibes with your post . I tend to avoid name calling and insulting other posters.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,854
    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
    But that's when the Torii tribe were in power. Which is different to the glorious reign of the Laabur tribe when we lived through a renaissance of brotherhood, self-pride and art.

    ...

    Or is it the other way round?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    edited May 27

    Farage challenges Sunak to a debate on immigration.

    Absolute open goal for Sunak 'I am not debating someone who is too scared of the electorate to stand for parliament'

    Edit- obviously Rishi will Ronnie Rosenthal it

    Double edit - but it's his chance to make Farage look a total no mark clown

    It's an obvious rejoinder, but they also both know that Sunak is desperate to claw back support from Reform, so it still looks like a dodge to those who like Farage who Sunak needs.

    But what could he really say in debate? "This time we'll get it done"?

    I don't think Sunak would be awful in debates, but Farage would make mincemeat of him on the government's record.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494
    DougSeal said:

    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    It’s not going to be reduced to 1997 levels though. Sure, the Tories might lose some seats, but this is the nadir of their campaign and they’re still in it. I reckon we’ll see average 5% Tory leads this time next month and a small but serviceable majority off the back of them.
    If you believe that put your money on it. I'm sure you'll get good odds from one of the bookies.

    I'm working to the assumption at the moment that they'll lose100 to 125 seats. Enough for labour to form a government but not necessarily enough to get a serviceable majority.

    That being said:
    1) if the polls are right and Labour are between 40 and 45% and the Tories are between 22 and 29% then they'll lose a lot more.
    2) I'm also expecting that the Tories to have some utter rubbish in their Manifesto which makes it worse for them.
    3) Sunak is not the campaigner that Johnson was in 2019. He doesn't have a clear and simple message. I'll add that SKS isn't either but he's still better, and surrounded by better people than Sunak is.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,032
    ohnotnow said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
    But that's when the Torii tribe were in power. Which is different to the glorious reign of the Laabur tribe when we lived through a renaissance of brotherhood, self-pride and art.

    ...

    Or is it the other way round?
    At least Plaid Cymru are still campaigning for proper British. Not like this furrin immigrant Anglish the Tories insist on speaking.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    kle4 said:

    Farage challenges Sunak to a debate on immigration.

    Absolute open goal for Sunak 'I am not debating someone who is too scared of the electorate to stand for parliament'

    Edit- obviously Rishi will Ronnie Rosenthal it

    Double edit - but it's his chance to make Farage look a total no mark clown

    It's an obvious rejoinder, but they also both know that Sunak is desperate to claw back support from Reform, so it still looks like a dodge to those who like Farage who Sunak needs.
    He follows up with 'I'll speak directly to the voters you've deserted'
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,858

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    That is bonkers and @BatteryCorrectHorse will have a meltdown. Surely the idea of triple locking the pension is to get it to a sensible level for those that do not have additional income. Triple locking the personal allowance doesn't help them at all as they won't be paying tax anyway. It is bonkers on stilts.

    It has to be a spoof. It will give people like me, who doesn't need it extra money and be of no benefit whatsoever to a person who just gets the state pension.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494
    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.

    But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.

    They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
    in an alternative universe, Truss stayed on long enough to weather the storm but gets forced into an earlier election. Loses but has a clear message so doesn't lose as badly as Sunak is about to.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    kle4 said:

    Farage challenges Sunak to a debate on immigration.

    Absolute open goal for Sunak 'I am not debating someone who is too scared of the electorate to stand for parliament'

    Edit- obviously Rishi will Ronnie Rosenthal it

    Double edit - but it's his chance to make Farage look a total no mark clown

    It's an obvious rejoinder, but they also both know that Sunak is desperate to claw back support from Reform, so it still looks like a dodge to those who like Farage who Sunak needs.

    But what could he really say in debate? "This time we'll get it done"?

    I don't think Sunak would be awful in debates, but Farage would make mincemeat of him on the government's record.
    could try the Jacob Rees Mogg tactic and try and charm Farage into the Tory camp -
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760
    edited May 27
    kjh said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    That is bonkers and @BatteryCorrectHorse will have a meltdown. Surely the idea of triple locking the pension is to get it to a sensible level for those that do not have additional income. Triple locking the personal allowance doesn't help them at all as they won't be paying tax anyway. It is bonkers on stilts.

    It has to be a spoof. It will give people like me, who doesn't need it extra money and be of no benefit whatsoever to a person who just gets the state pension.
    Definitely bonkers. They'll be proposing the reintroduction of National Service next.

    Oh.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    kle4 said:

    Farage challenges Sunak to a debate on immigration.

    Absolute open goal for Sunak 'I am not debating someone who is too scared of the electorate to stand for parliament'

    Edit- obviously Rishi will Ronnie Rosenthal it

    Double edit - but it's his chance to make Farage look a total no mark clown

    It's an obvious rejoinder, but they also both know that Sunak is desperate to claw back support from Reform, so it still looks like a dodge to those who like Farage who Sunak needs.

    But what could he really say in debate? "This time we'll get it done"?

    I don't think Sunak would be awful in debates, but Farage would make mincemeat of him on the government's record.
    could try the Jacob Rees Mogg tactic and try and charm Farage into the Tory camp -
    Think its a bit late for that, expecially with Reform seeing blood in the water.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    edited May 27
    kjh said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    That is bonkers and @BatteryCorrectHorse will have a meltdown. Surely the idea of triple locking the pension is to get it to a sensible level for those that do not have additional income. Triple locking the personal allowance doesn't help them at all as they won't be paying tax anyway. It is bonkers on stilts.

    It has to be a spoof. It will give people like me, who doesn't need it extra money and be of no benefit whatsoever to a person who just gets the state pension.
    They know they are losing so they may as well pledge to triple lock the PA for all for the next parliament to 'give back some of the restraint forced on us by Covid' and fund it from sofa raids in all departments and red tape blah blah blah
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    Farage should bugger off to the USA and support his hero Trump. He made some pathetic excuse as to why he didn’t become a candidate and now has the gall to challenge Sunak to a debate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    Closing arguments in the Trump trial tomorrow, could be an outcome Weds-Friday, depending on how thorough the jury go through the evidence and how much unanimity there is (and assuming they don't want to come back over next weekend).

    That there was business records fraud is a certainty, but whether they can directly tie Trump's intent to further a second crime to make it a felony conviction is less cast-iron. Common sense says yes, and there's corroboration of a lot of stuff, but reasonable doubt can be a cruel mistress sometimes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    nico679 said:

    Farage should bugger off to the USA and support his hero Trump. He made some pathetic excuse as to why he didn’t become a candidate and now has the gall to challenge Sunak to a debate.

    Has he even taken over leadership of Reform to justify it on that basis? Or is it still whatshisface?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    edited May 27
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Farage challenges Sunak to a debate on immigration.

    Absolute open goal for Sunak 'I am not debating someone who is too scared of the electorate to stand for parliament'

    Edit- obviously Rishi will Ronnie Rosenthal it

    Double edit - but it's his chance to make Farage look a total no mark clown

    It's an obvious rejoinder, but they also both know that Sunak is desperate to claw back support from Reform, so it still looks like a dodge to those who like Farage who Sunak needs.

    But what could he really say in debate? "This time we'll get it done"?

    I don't think Sunak would be awful in debates, but Farage would make mincemeat of him on the government's record.
    could try the Jacob Rees Mogg tactic and try and charm Farage into the Tory camp -
    Think its a bit late for that, expecially with Reform seeing blood in the water.
    Farage is their weak link now, a lot of anger at him for not standing so going in on him two footed is a winning strategy imo
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    Carnyx said:

    ohnotnow said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.
    But that's when the Torii tribe were in power. Which is different to the glorious reign of the Laabur tribe when we lived through a renaissance of brotherhood, self-pride and art.

    ...

    Or is it the other way round?
    At least Plaid Cymru are still campaigning for proper British. Not like this furrin immigrant Anglish the Tories insist on speaking.
    I've always known one day the Welsh would come back to take what is theirs. They have been playing the very long game.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Farage should bugger off to the USA and support his hero Trump. He made some pathetic excuse as to why he didn’t become a candidate and now has the gall to challenge Sunak to a debate.

    Has he even taken over leadership of Reform to justify it on that basis? Or is it still whatshisface?
    He's honorary president. The great big turd.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,032
    edited May 27
    kjh said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    That is bonkers and @BatteryCorrectHorse will have a meltdown. Surely the idea of triple locking the pension is to get it to a sensible level for those that do not have additional income. Triple locking the personal allowance doesn't help them at all as they won't be paying tax anyway. It is bonkers on stilts.

    It has to be a spoof. It will give people like me, who doesn't need it extra money and be of no benefit whatsoever to a person who just gets the state pension.
    Quite a few people have the older style state pension, with an earnings related element, and/or some savings and even a few shares.

    The allowances for interest and dividends have gone down a lot in recent years and interest rates have gone up, so you'd need only about 20K of savings to be nudging the £500 allowance limit with a reasonable interest rate.

    Neither DWP nor banks now take tax at source, so the result is inevitable.

    PS: Edit: not even 20K savings: could be much less, 12K even.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,035
    Labour has won the endorsement of a coalition of business leaders who have said that a “new outlook” is needed so the UK can “break free” from a decade of economic stagnation.

    In a letter to The Times, 120 executives say that the economy has been “beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus” as they say the election represents “the chance to change the country”.

    The signatories, who include senior figures from the City, entrepreneurs, investors, high-profile figures from the world of technology and leading retailers, say change is needed “to achieve the UK’s full economic potential”.

    The letter is signed by former executives from JP Morgan, Heathrow, Aston Martin, JD Sports, Iceland and the advertising giant WPP. Sir Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, and Tom Kerridge, the restaurateur, have also signed the letter, along with the founder of a childcare company in which the prime minister’s wife previously held shares.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-general-election-support-business-leaders-qshm9mf58
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Farage should bugger off to the USA and support his hero Trump. He made some pathetic excuse as to why he didn’t become a candidate and now has the gall to challenge Sunak to a debate.

    Has he even taken over leadership of Reform to justify it on that basis? Or is it still whatshisface?
    It’s still Tice. I’m hoping Reform do well to cause the Tories a big problem but expect their polling to fall as some move to vote Tory to stop Starmer .
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,879

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
    I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly.
    Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,913

    Ghedebrav said:

    A fun* day our shooting video for social media. Now a pile of editing to do.

    Met my Labour opponent! Nice guy, not from the constituency, doesn't sound like he is running a campaign.

    What’s your constituency?
    Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
    I see that the constituency includes St Fergus and Peterhead. Where all the investment in the Acorn CCS cluster is supposed to happen. And create plenty of jobs. A mischievous LibDem could put the word about that the Tories would cancel the project if they get reelected. Force them to deny it.
    A mischievous Lib Dem would also insinuate that Duguid was in the pocket of the big fishing conglomerates, to the detriment of the independent skippers.
    The Tories and the SNP are the same choice. In office for too long, failed, incompetent, pursuing their own mad agendas rather than the public's. I look at seats like mine and wonder how the twin collapses of the Tory and SNP votes will play out.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,032
    Farooq said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour has won the endorsement of a coalition of business leaders who have said that a “new outlook” is needed so the UK can “break free” from a decade of economic stagnation.

    In a letter to The Times, 120 executives say that the economy has been “beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus” as they say the election represents “the chance to change the country”.

    The signatories, who include senior figures from the City, entrepreneurs, investors, high-profile figures from the world of technology and leading retailers, say change is needed “to achieve the UK’s full economic potential”.

    The letter is signed by former executives from JP Morgan, Heathrow, Aston Martin, JD Sports, Iceland and the advertising giant WPP. Sir Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, and Tom Kerridge, the restaurateur, have also signed the letter, along with the founder of a childcare company in which the prime minister’s wife previously held shares.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-general-election-support-business-leaders-qshm9mf58

    Endorsements from Wales AND Iceland. Anyone been endorsed by more countries than that?
    England. Heathrow's in England. I think?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,886

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    I quite like Sunak’s idea that national service will foster a sense of community and belonging.

    He’s probably right, but it will take decades for that feeling to filter down the generations. Probably fifty years or more.

    It's not a terrible idea to have. I don't think it would have gone down super well, but if it had been announced in a speech with that as the theme, maybe it would not have immediately provoked so many visceral reactions about fining or imprisoning young people who don't want to be drafted.
    It's also not going to be well received from a government that has made life so much worse for young people and insults them at every opportunity.

    Fostering a sense of community works both ways. The government and the reactionary Boomers it panders to show no respect or sense of community towards the young - denying them housing, rights, and opportunities. And then turn round and complain when they're not grateful their lives have been made worse.

    If the government wants to foster a sense of community and belonging, it should start at home - rather than imposing on young people, who let's not forget, gave up 2 years of their youth to protect the elderly. Who if they are those supporting this look evermore ungrateful, selfish, and completely out-of-touch with the lives of the young.

    Many of whom are having to work harder than ever to pay for education, housing, and so on, as wages go less far and have far greater costs, than was the case for their parents or grandparents.
    This Government and its remaining voters hate young people and shaft them at every turn. The problem is this hatred is not only going to stop any of them ever voting Tory in the future, it's now putting off people older than them too.
    Its not any politicians hate young people....you dont vote so you dont matter. If you voted politicians would listen....blame it on your cohort
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,858

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
    I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly.
    Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
    Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    spudgfsh said:

    Out of interest, has anyone seen a list of which constituencies Alba plan to stand in? Alex Salmond lives in ANME in the next village from mine, surely he wants to have a go? He used to be the MP here...

    probably here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland#Candidates

    (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
    I have appeared on Wikipedia finally!
    Campaign slogan 'JustGetADecentMP'?
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,154

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Farage should bugger off to the USA and support his hero Trump. He made some pathetic excuse as to why he didn’t become a candidate and now has the gall to challenge Sunak to a debate.

    Has he even taken over leadership of Reform to justify it on that basis? Or is it still whatshisface?
    He's honorary president. The great big turd.
    More importantly, he owns Reform UK Limited, with power to hire and fire directors. Tice is basically Chief Exec, answering to Farage.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    Governments can get away with saying no income tax or NI rises as they can just freeze the tax allowance which then is in effect a tax rise . And even if they had the money to increase the allowance they’d still rather cut taxes as it sounds better .
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    The average time in Parliament for those standing down in 2019 was around 18 years. According to that wiki page of Scottish candidates the average there is 9.5 years.

    Obviously there's been a lot of churn among Scottish MPs in the last 10 years anyway, but that's still low.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    edited May 27

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Farage should bugger off to the USA and support his hero Trump. He made some pathetic excuse as to why he didn’t become a candidate and now has the gall to challenge Sunak to a debate.

    Has he even taken over leadership of Reform to justify it on that basis? Or is it still whatshisface?
    He's honorary president. The great big turd.
    More importantly, he owns Reform UK Limited, with power to hire and fire directors. Tice is basically Chief Exec, answering to Farage.
    yes thats a bit weird .Must admit I thought political parties had to be companies limited by guarantee or unincorporated associations (like charities)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,618

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    Indeed so, William. And who could reasonably refute such a claim? Perhaps we will see a Truss Redux, sometime on Wednesday or Friday. Bet accordingly.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,618

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    Lettuce give that some thought shall we?
    Indeed. It’s not rocket salad.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255
    edited May 27
    I do like some of these Scottish constituency names.

    Dinfermline and Dollar.
    Arboath and Broughty Ferry
    Perth and Kinross-shire (I guess three s's in a row is bad?)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,196

    spudgfsh said:

    Out of interest, has anyone seen a list of which constituencies Alba plan to stand in? Alex Salmond lives in ANME in the next village from mine, surely he wants to have a go? He used to be the MP here...

    probably here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland#Candidates

    (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
    I have appeared on Wikipedia finally!
    It might help if you change the picture on your Twitter
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited May 27

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,485
    spudgfsh said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.

    But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.

    They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
    in an alternative universe, Truss stayed on long enough to weather the storm but gets forced into an earlier election. Loses but has a clear message so doesn't lose as badly as Sunak is about to.
    I suspect she might have weathered the storm if she'd paused for a few weeks after QEII's death, rather than proceeding with the mini-budget immediately after the funeral. And if she'd done so, it's certainly possible that she'd have been able to grow into the job before the (as you say, inevitable) early election.

    But even if she had, I'm not sure that she'd have become any more palatable to MPs and CCHQ - and without their support, she'd probably have found herself in the same position Rishi is now, just a year earlier.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
    Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,085
    ITV 10.25 tonight: Theresa May: The Accidental Prime Minister
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,154
    nico679 said:

    Governments can get away with saying no income tax or NI rises as they can just freeze the tax allowance which then is in effect a tax rise . And even if they had the money to increase the allowance they’d still rather cut taxes as it sounds better .

    The announcement sounds better, but that's rather different. What you need to do as a government is ensure people feel better off in the medium term, and allowances are good for that as everyone gets a few extra quid, but the people who need it really feel the benefit.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760

    ITV 10.25 tonight: Theresa May: The Accidental Prime Minister

    Next week's episode: Rishi Sunak: The Accident-prone Prime Minister
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    I think the world is better now than in 1574, but your picture of the sixteenth century is exaggerated. The biggest concentrations of the world population were in Asia, in Ming China and the Delhi Sultanate in particular. Lives were sometimes short and brutal there, but frequently not. Slavery was uncommon or non-existent in much of the world. Etc.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,913
    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    Out of interest, has anyone seen a list of which constituencies Alba plan to stand in? Alex Salmond lives in ANME in the next village from mine, surely he wants to have a go? He used to be the MP here...

    probably here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland#Candidates

    (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
    I have appeared on Wikipedia finally!
    Campaign slogan 'JustGetADecentMP'?
    Just Get It Done.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760
    Farooq said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    Lettuce give that some thought shall we?
    Indeed. It’s not rocket salad.
    It's not going to happen. The Conservatives have already had their fingers chard once with her as PM.
    Indeed, their polling numbers would slip endive further if they did.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,085
    edited May 27
    AlsoLei said:

    spudgfsh said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.

    But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.

    They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
    in an alternative universe, Truss stayed on long enough to weather the storm but gets forced into an earlier election. Loses but has a clear message so doesn't lose as badly as Sunak is about to.
    I suspect she might have weathered the storm if she'd paused for a few weeks after QEII's death, rather than proceeding with the mini-budget immediately after the funeral. And if she'd done so, it's certainly possible that she'd have been able to grow into the job before the (as you say, inevitable) early election.

    But even if she had, I'm not sure that she'd have become any more palatable to MPs and CCHQ - and without their support, she'd probably have found herself in the same position Rishi is now, just a year earlier.
    Liz Truss's fatal flaw was learnt from Dominic Cummings: the civil service and wider establishment is a malign lefty blob out to destroy you. Truss had a record of dismissing civil servants she disliked. In Downing Street this led her to dismiss or bypass "the adults in the room" that were trusted by the financial markets. And so all the bad things Rishi Sunak had warned would happen, happened. Goodnight Vienna.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Oh they’re smart

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckvv8qwl4y4o

    More than 100 business chiefs sign letter backing Labour

    Published
    16 minutes ago

    Dozens of business leaders have signed a letter endorsing the Labour Party’s economic plans ahead of the 4 July general election saying it is “time for a change”.
    In a letter published in Tuesday's Times newspaper, 121 founders, CEOs, and former leaders at a range of financial services, retail and manufacturing firms say Labour has changed and “wants to work with business” on long term growth.
    It comes as shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves is due to deliver her first major speech of the election campaign to business supporters, including some former Conservative backers in the East Midlands later.

    She is expected to say she will lead the most “pro-growth Treasury in our country’s history”.
    Labour is borrowing from the Conservatives’ playbook in getting business leaders to endorse their economic plans.
    Ahead of the 2015 election, 100 corporate leaders endorsed the Conservatives.
    One of those, Malcolm Walker - the founder of supermarket chain Iceland - will now endorse Labour instead.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
    Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
    That depends if I could go back rich and powerful or as an average person.

    Either way I'm not sure I'd enjoy shitting in a bucket.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,444
    kjh said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
    I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly.
    Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
    Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
    The thing is it’s a complete none story - next year it will need to be raised for pensioners anyway because the state pension is about to cross that threshold.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    What do they mean by that? The personal allowance for pensioners stays at £12,570 forever more?
    I presume that the personal allowance for pensioners would go up with the state pension. Once the state pension goes past the personal allowance.

    Personally I would tie the personal allowance to pensions. For everyone. So the personal allowance = full state pension for evermore.

    The start of a UBI.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Farooq said:

    So, we're down to 343 Conservative MPs. Is that the final number we end this sad, sorry parliament on? Or will there be further drama right at the end?

    They have three days left. From Thursday there will be 0 MPs.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576
    Heathener said:

    Oh they’re smart

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckvv8qwl4y4o

    More than 100 business chiefs sign letter backing Labour

    Published
    16 minutes ago

    Dozens of business leaders have signed a letter endorsing the Labour Party’s economic plans ahead of the 4 July general election saying it is “time for a change”.
    In a letter published in Tuesday's Times newspaper, 121 founders, CEOs, and former leaders at a range of financial services, retail and manufacturing firms say Labour has changed and “wants to work with business” on long term growth.
    It comes as shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves is due to deliver her first major speech of the election campaign to business supporters, including some former Conservative backers in the East Midlands later.

    She is expected to say she will lead the most “pro-growth Treasury in our country’s history”.
    Labour is borrowing from the Conservatives’ playbook in getting business leaders to endorse their economic plans.
    Ahead of the 2015 election, 100 corporate leaders endorsed the Conservatives.
    One of those, Malcolm Walker - the founder of supermarket chain Iceland - will now endorse Labour instead.

    Translation - since you are going to win, we are now *your* besties.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
    Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
    Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    For a couple of days up to Thursday's dissolution, the UK parliament may yet end up with two Reform MPs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/sunak-struggles-to-control-tory-party-on-chaotic-fifth-day-of-election-campaign
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 231
    Farooq said:

    So, we're down to 343 Conservative MPs. Is that the final number we end this sad, sorry parliament on? Or will there be further drama right at the end?

    I see they restored the whip to Matt Hancock last week on compassionate grounds or something - have you included him in your tally? I have no doubt you would want your calculations to be accurate (although in that case some of them are so semi-detached these days you might have to start using decimal places.)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    For a couple of days up to Thursday's dissolution, the UK parliament may yet end up with two Reform MPs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/sunak-struggles-to-control-tory-party-on-chaotic-fifth-day-of-election-campaign

    Equal to Alba - remember them? I wonder how many candidates they will put up.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    In US the big news esp. for sports fans, is the death of Bill Walton, legendary basketball star who played his collegiate career for UCLA, and for much of his professional career in the NBA for the Portland Trailblazers.

    Sole time I ever attended a pro basketball game was back in the early 1990s before our hometown Seattle Sonics were removed to Oklahoma City by Starbucks caffeine-monger Howard Schultz, who is still widely reviled because of this in the Emerald City & environs.

    That night the Sonics played the Trailblazers, our regional rivals. Can't recall anything about the game itself, not being much of a sports fan. But definitely remember AFTER the game was over, bunch of real Sonics fans lingering so they could heck Bill Walton, with my feeble assistance (it seemed the thing to do).

    Why heckle Walton? Not only was he a Trailblazer legend, after retiring from pros he'd morphed into a sportscaster, in his case a pretty good one. AND he'd recently uttered some somewhat less-than-flattering commentary re: the Sonics.

    What I real remember, is how while verbal brickbats were flying at him, Walton was grinning from ear to ear.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive


  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,514
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
    Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
    Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
    Sounds lovely in principle but the lack of medicine would not be ideal.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,558

    dixiedean said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    What's disturbing is I can't decide if that is someone being mischievously satirical or not.
    well there used to be an age related allowance (for pensioners) and it was the tories that took it away
    IMHO, the threshold at which the 40% tax income rate kicks in should be lower for pensioners.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
    Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
    Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
    Sounds lovely in principle but the lack of medicine would not be ideal.
    No but the lack of internet would be.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,565
    Keir Starmer: I am a socialist.

    "Asked if he would use that word to describe himself, Sir Keir told the BBC: “Yes, I would describe myself as a socialist."

    You have been warned.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/27/keir-starmer-socialist-labour-general-election/
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760
    edited May 27

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    I think the world is better now than in 1574, but your picture of the sixteenth century is exaggerated. The biggest concentrations of the world population were in Asia, in Ming China and the Delhi Sultanate in particular. Lives were sometimes short and brutal there, but frequently not. Slavery was uncommon or non-existent in much of the world. Etc.
    500 years is 1524 not 1574 but whatever...

    Lives were short and brutal everywhere 500 years ago, punishments were harsh, restrictions on individuals severe e.g.:

    Ming China: "It was illegal for commoners to wear fine silk or dress in bright red, dark green or yellow colors; nor could they wear boots or guan hats. Women could not use ornaments made from gold, jade, pearl or emerald. Merchants and their families were further banned from using silk."

    The Delhi Sultanate"Muslim merchants were granted exclusive permits and monopoly in these "mandis" to buy and resell at official prices. No one is other than these merchants could buy from farmers or sell in cities. Those found violating these "mandi" rules were severely punished, often by mutilation."

    (both from wiki)

    PS 'slavery or serfdom'

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited May 27
    I’m a socialist in the proper sense of that word and I’ve twice voted Conservative at General Elections.

    Just as Michael Gove said he’s not a Tory but a Whig.

    p.s. The Telegraph is in a real state at the moment. A shrinking echo chamber of embittered (mostly old) people who are truly bewildered about what’s happening. The most amazing part is that they are totally at a loss for solutions: scratching around at this, that, or t’other. It tells me that the Conservatives won’t be coming back for a long, long, time. They have completely run out of ideas and are now living in a different age from the rest of the country.

    I write this as someone who takes the Saturday edition.

  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,485
    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Rumours on Twitter that Tories going to announce a triple lock in the personal allowance - but only for pensioners. If this is true then mega lolz.

    Seems unlikely as Sunak has scarcely increased it since 2019 and this would highlight it. Broadly, the increase was a Coalition initiative driven by the Lib Dems. It was deprioritised then abandoned after that.
    I think it was sitting at about £6k to £7k in 2009, and yes, I recall it was to rise to £10k, which the Coalition coped out on and said 'over the life of the Parliament' but then went back on and raised it to £10k quite quickly, probably by about 2012 if I remember rightly.
    Since then it's basically been static. Fiscal drag, bringing loads more lower paid into the tax system. We're probably back were we were in 2009, and a party annoucing they'd raise it to £15k or even £18k would probably do well.
    Yep agree. It should be increased, but just increasing it for pensioners is taking the p*ss and I'm a pensioner.
    The thing is it’s a complete none story - next year it will need to be raised for pensioners anyway because the state pension is about to cross that threshold.
    Alternatively, clawing back 20% of the amount over the threshold would be a good way of taking the inflationary heat out of the triple lock.

    The most recent budget froze thresholds until April 2028 - there's no money available to increase them before then.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,849
    AlsoLei said:

    spudgfsh said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.

    But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.

    They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
    in an alternative universe, Truss stayed on long enough to weather the storm but gets forced into an earlier election. Loses but has a clear message so doesn't lose as badly as Sunak is about to.
    I suspect she might have weathered the storm if she'd paused for a few weeks after QEII's death, rather than proceeding with the mini-budget immediately after the funeral. And if she'd done so, it's certainly possible that she'd have been able to grow into the job before the (as you say, inevitable) early election.

    But even if she had, I'm not sure that she'd have become any more palatable to MPs and CCHQ - and without their support, she'd probably have found herself in the same position Rishi is now, just a year earlier.
    The problem with Truss was she had an image problem even before she became PM. She was also incapable of growing into the job because she was, I am afraid to say, incapable of doing the job in the first place.

    Tory MPs were faced with a party gutted of talent at the time of Boris’ downfall; but they should never have allowed second-rate politicians like Truss and Sunak to rise to the top in the leadership stakes. Even Penny M, who I personally have a lot of time for, was too inexperienced to be in the top 3 - she is a future talent who should learn the ropes in a LOTO role, not to be parachuted into Number 10 in the middle of a parliament.

    In hindsight the party would have been much better putting a figure like Gove or Hunt in charge, no matter the fact the membership weren’t fans. No those figures may not have been to the Party’s ideological tastes, but they are substantial figures with political nous and they could at least have kept the ship steady until the GE. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 482
    Heathener said:

    It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive


    You beat me to it. The times is being very labour friendly.... tell you what: labour is running a tight ship. Their campaign it light years ahead of the tories. I suspect their latest proposal has done nothing but bring the youth vote out for Labour. What were they thinking
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
    Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
    Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
    Sounds lovely in principle but the lack of medicine would not be ideal.
    Especially anaesthesia.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,423

    Keir Starmer: I am a socialist.

    "Asked if he would use that word to describe himself, Sir Keir told the BBC: “Yes, I would describe myself as a socialist."

    You have been warned.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/27/keir-starmer-socialist-labour-general-election/

    I consider myself warmed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,255

    Heathener said:

    It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive


    You beat me to it. The times is being very labour friendly.... tell you what: labour is running a tight ship. Their campaign it light years ahead of the tories.
    There's a long way to go, but 2019 really seems to have gotten through to their MP, officials, and even the base.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,138
    AlsoLei said:

    spudgfsh said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    I have been pondering, as I’m sure many other PBers have, whether Liz TRUSS could stage a remarkable comeback during the election campaign. It would be an eye-catching move. One to think carefully about.

    She could claim that on account of the number of Tory MPs standing down, Rishi Sunak's coup has no standing and she is the legitimate leader of the party.
    If the Tory Party is reduced to the 1997 level (or below) she could be one of the few "credible" candidates left.
    They may well have been no worse off had they kept her (if the fall had been slightly less precipitous she might have weathered it), so given she really was offering a new approach it is conceivable some would go for her again, especially as those who remain will be in the safest seats and as a result possibly the more ideologically minded.

    But I think she will still bear a brunt of anger for the whole debacle, and they'll go for fresh hands.

    They'll only have 100-130 to choose from, so options will be limited.
    in an alternative universe, Truss stayed on long enough to weather the storm but gets forced into an earlier election. Loses but has a clear message so doesn't lose as badly as Sunak is about to.
    I suspect she might have weathered the storm if she'd paused for a few weeks after QEII's death, rather than proceeding with the mini-budget immediately after the funeral. And if she'd done so, it's certainly possible that she'd have been able to grow into the job before the (as you say, inevitable) early election.

    But even if she had, I'm not sure that she'd have become any more palatable to MPs and CCHQ - and without their support, she'd probably have found herself in the same position Rishi is now, just a year earlier.
    One of the things Kwarteng said in his interestingly frank interview with Stewart & Campbell was (if I remember correctly) that Truss wasn't interested in suggestions to pause/slow down/reassess -- everything had to be done right now.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,035

    I suspect their latest proposal has done nothing but bring the youth vote out for Labour. What were they thinking

    @WhoTargetsMe

    Have the Conservatives gifted Labour a highly effective voter registration campaign?

    https://x.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1795151829786910901
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,760

    Keir Starmer: I am a socialist.

    "Asked if he would use that word to describe himself, Sir Keir told the BBC: “Yes, I would describe myself as a socialist."

    You have been warned.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/27/keir-starmer-socialist-labour-general-election/

    You may have been warned, I'm encouraged.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Farooq said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    viewcode said:

    Heathener said:

    malcolmg said:

    Heathener said:

    I did wonder with the new generation of men, whether lads' mags would re-appear.
    This is the last gasp of the reactionary right.

    Before the rest of the country moves on. Deporting boat people to Rwanda will be one of those things we look back on and wonder what they were taking. Trans rights will most certainly come back onto the agenda and with a huge majority there won’t be a lot to stop it, but it will be in the context of people generally chilling out and ceasing to judge those who want to identify how the fuck they want. And as for beating up the disabled … well ...
    Any idiot trying to push Trans shit again will be out on their arse and deservedly so.
    In the next few years those of us still alive will look back on the reactionary right’s shibboleths and wonder how we ended up there.

    You’ll not stop the tide of history. Same happened with gay rights. You’re on the lost side. Just a question of time.
    The last year or so has shown that tide crashing into a number of immovable objects, and then moving out again.
    There's no such thing as a "tide of history".

    Sometimes things are a good idea, like gay rights.

    Other time things are a bad idea, like Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Treating trans people with respect is a good idea.

    Treating women with disrespect is a bad idea.
    Indeed. There is no such thing.
    "The tide of history", otherwise known as "the Whig view of history" - that history evolves in a straight line in a progressive direction. It simply doesn't do that.

    In fact we are lucky that somebody went to the trouble of writing an entire article on how the UK resolves its social issues, with an actual real-life worked example.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/21/the-history-of-gambling/
    I hold "the Whig view of history" (though I didn't know it was called that) - that history evolves in a straight line in a generally progressive direction.

    However, tempting though it is to use the "tide of history" cliche, it's a terrible metaphor because as we all know tides sweep out as regularly as they sweep in.

    Humans have been evolving societally and intellectually at an incredible rate for the past 50,000 years. Yes there are regressive interludes but the overriding direction is progressive. That surely is undeniable.
    Its completely deniable.

    It evolves, but not in a particular direction. In hindsight you tend to view evolution as progressive but that's post hoc ego proctor hoc.

    But you are completely ignoring all the stillborn failed evolutions or regressive ones. Or setting an impartial definition of progressive.
    Here is my thinking.

    500 years ago in every part of the world:
    - lives were short and brutal
    - starvation was a common experience
    - most people lived in slavery or serfdom, with almost zero opportunity to change that
    - women were second class citizens
    - disability was feared and stigmatised
    - education was the preserve of the top 1%
    - cruel physical punishment (often execution) was the norm for crimes or perceived crimes.
    - animal cruelty was ubiquitous
    - superstition ruled and ruined the lives of many
    - the rights of the individual were almost non-existent
    - difference was pilloried (often literally)
    ... I could go on.

    Go back further and the situation was progressively worse.

    We have come a long way incredibly quickly in evolutionary timescales, with setbacks and periods of regression for sure, but the overall direction of travel is clear.
    But 500 years ago, in England anyway, civic infrastructure was worse than it was 1100 years before that. Between the retreat of the Romans and the Victorians no decent roads were built here. Sewerage in London was worse than it was under the Romans. Life expectancy was creeping back up but it dropped precipitously between 400 and 700 AD. Civilisations fall.

    'setbacks and periods of regression'

    But we don't look back 50,000 years and think it's been progress and regress but regression overall do we?
    Pretty big “setback” if you ask me…a millennium long at least. And what of all the civilisations that are just, well, dust?
    Let me put it another way, which era would you like to go back to, to live out the rest of your days, if you could?
    Easy. I’d transport myself Quantum Leap style to be an English country parson somewhere with a nice living in about 1750 or so. Maybe in the Weald of Kent or the Berkshire Downs. Or maybe Newmarket for the horses. Somewhere like that. I fantasise about that a lot.
    What if you can't choose what station you'll get in life? Anything more than the very recent past would probably be a serious gamble.
    The phrase “three score years and ten” appears in The Bible for a reason. The Biblical allusion to a lifespan was there because even then, if you made it past childhood (v dodgy admittedly), the chances of making 70 were not bad.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,067

    Keir Starmer: I am a socialist.

    "Asked if he would use that word to describe himself, Sir Keir told the BBC: “Yes, I would describe myself as a socialist."

    You have been warned.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/27/keir-starmer-socialist-labour-general-election/

    The Labour Party is a Democratic Socialist Party. It says so on my membership card.

    It would be fecking weird if the leader of a Democratic Socialist Party wasn't a Socialist.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,035
    I wonder if anyone will ask Liz Truss what she thinks about her daughters doing Natty Servs ?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084

    Heathener said:

    It looks as if The Times are going to lead with their Exclusive


    You beat me to it. The times is being very labour friendly.... tell you what: labour is running a tight ship. Their campaign it light years ahead of the tories. I suspect their latest proposal has done nothing but bring the youth vote out for Labour. What were they thinking
    Yes indeed.

    Morgan McSweeney, Labour campaign manager for anyone who didn’t know, seems to be very on the ball so far.
This discussion has been closed.