It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
The development of an economic and scientific super power in roughly half a century.
People who admire them do not generally weigh up the positives and negatives, they just ignore the negatives.
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
Thatcher herself read Chemistry and worked in an icecream factory and then became a lawyer. She was never a professional politician until she won Finchley
But that's the deflection. The young are overwhelmingly Left. That's OK cos they soon won't be. Cos other countries. And some (what proportion?) are into Stalin and Mao. So the fact they overwhelmingly don't agree with me is totally invalidated. Why don't they agree with me?
Until the right stop using these arguments and awaiting the inevitable incel revolution, rather than attempting to understand why they aren't getting any traction at all right here right now, not in a mythical projected future, then they are heading for defeat. Do I have to do your work for you?
Tories are ahead of Reform in England and in Scotland, Reform ahead of the Tories in Wales.
Yes, overall though Reform now lead the Tories with Leavers with Yougov (with Labour third) and the Tories lead Reform with Remainers (though both trail Labour and the LDs with Remain voters overall)
I really wonder if there could be some value bets on RFM in Wales. Places like Torfaen are moving away from Labour, 2019 RFM + Con > Lab - so it'd be one of the first places to feel a reform surge.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
It's TikTok and YouTube I expect.
Though a bit more world perspective in the history at school would be better
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
Thatcher could draw on plenty of people who'd thought deeply about the problems facing Britain under the post-war consensus.
This is what's been missing over the last 14 years. The central question that Cameron and his generation were concerned with solving was electoral rather than political, and the ultimate legacy of this has been to make the political problems worse while leaving the party unelectable.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
It's TikTok and YouTube I expect.
Though a bit more world perspective in the history at school would be better
Schools should spend much more time examining and exploring modern history and geopolitics and much less time mithering on about ancient kings.
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Successful politicians did mostly enter Parliament young, because seniority mattered. Thatcher, Heseltine, Callaghan, Blair, Brown were elected in their early thirties. Churchill and Harold Wilson did it in their twenties. Asterisk on John Major who was mid-thirties but had been on the council since the age of 25. The only recent high achiever who entered Parliament later than around 35-36, as far as I can tell, is Theresa May. (Edit: Sunak and Johnson were both mid-late 30s entrants, rather testing the hypothesis about life experience.)
Michael Howard was not elected as an MP until his 40s. Starmer was not elected as an MP until he was 53 so will reverse the recent trend of younger, political careerists as party leaders
Well, as I noted, this is not a recent trend, unless recent includes Winston Churchill. Starmer's route to almost-PM is historically highly unusual, and the key has been his brazen embrace and U-turn on Corbynism.
Hopefully Starmer's career will prove more of a trend, why not have a few PMs who didn't become MPs until their late 40s or even mid 50s after successful careers in business or the professions? Trump for all his faults at least was never a professional politician and didn't first run for office until he was over 70. Berlusconi too didn't enter politics until his late 50s after a successful business career, Eisenhower didn't run for office first until he was over 60 having been a top general
Truman didn't become a Senator until age 51, then became veep at 61 and President a few months later.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
It's TikTok and YouTube I expect.
Though a bit more world perspective in the history at school would be better
Schools should spend much more time examining and exploring modern history and geopolitics and much less time mithering on about ancient kings.
You can easily do history repeating itself linking stuff from the past to more modern occurrences.
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
Thatcher could draw on plenty of people who'd thought deeply about the problems facing Britain under the post-war consensus.
This is what's been missing over the last 14 years. The central question that Cameron and his generation were concerned with solving was electoral rather than political, and the ultimate legacy of this has been to make the political problems worse while leaving the party unelectable.
The one Lib Dem who watches could be an interesting case study ;-) I suspect one of the "don't fund hate" lot being forced to watch it to organise the pile on of anybody who dares to run an ad on there.
I don't think the formation of GB News has been very helpful to the Tory party cause (maybe that was the intension of the founders). It will be interesting post GE if the Tories lean into trying to win that audience by moving further to the right or ignore them.
The one Lib Dem who watches could be an interesting case study ;-) I suspect one of the "don't fund hate" lot being forced to watch it to organise the pile on of anybody who dares to run an ad on there.
I must have missed the urinary incontinence pads for men boycott. 😀
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
But. It promoted price of everything value of nothing. (Much less than the hagiographers who didn't live through it imagine). That has been the dominant narrative of 45 years. Leading to a financocracy. Where the sums outweigh logic and basic decency. That is the crucial difference between us and other countries. Reductio ad absurdum. We've ended up with a finance PM with no connection to real life, real people, or even finance.
Tories are ahead of Reform in England and in Scotland, Reform ahead of the Tories in Wales.
Yes, overall though Reform now lead the Tories with Leavers with Yougov (with Labour third) and the Tories lead Reform with Remainers (though both trail Labour and the LDs with Remain voters overall)
I really wonder if there could be some value bets on RFM in Wales. Places like Torfaen are moving away from Labour, 2019 RFM + Con > Lab - so it'd be one of the first places to feel a reform surge.
I don't see it happening but if Reform does surge a bit more then they would be stronger in the formerly industrial areas, Wrexham is 28/1, Alyn & Deeside 16/1, Torfaen 25/1,
Slightly stranger shot is Montgomeryshire & Glyndŵr, Montgomery is farmer country, safe Tory but has elected Lib Dems in the past (Lembit Opik). the Glyndŵr bit is more old coalfield, UKIP did very well in Clwyd South (15.6%) in GE15 and that swung over to the Tories to be a gain in GE19. My gut feeling is that the UKIP vote would have been higher in the bit that is now in Montgomeryshire & Glyndŵr. If a lot of those Tories went over to Reform and the Labour and Lib Dem vote split fairly evenly then Reform's value on 33/1.
Another challenge for Starmer. Its very hard to attract businesses to an area if basically crime has become legalised.
There is virtually no talk in this GE campaign about all the low level crime of shoplifting, stealing phones, bikes etc, and of course the youth stabbing, including the 12 year old murderer the other day.
Just about to scroll through the comments to see if anything important has happened in the last few hours when I've been offline. You get a better idea on here than looking at news websites. 😊
You also get shit poetry here
Late night on PB Nothing good on the telly Drunkards start writing
Syllable count is key When writing a haiku online Pedants are everywhere
Another challenge for Starmer. Its very hard to attract businesses to an area if basically crime has become legalised.
There is virtually no talk in this GE campaign about all the low level crime of shoplifting, stealing phones, bikes etc, and of course the youth stabbing, including the 12 year old murderer the other day.
San Francisco and Middlesbrough don't have much in common, but this seems to be one thing they do.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
I didn’t need to be taught about the evils of communism or fascism from school. My grandparents were born in the 1910s and 20s, and my parents in the 50s. I was born in the (early) 1980s. It was self-evident. The first or hand experience is starting to fade. That’s a problem.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
"Mao's policies were responsible for a vast number of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions, and his government has been described as totalitarian."
"In 2011, after assessing twenty years of historical research in Eastern European archives, American historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million, which rise to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account.[76][77] American historian William D. Rubinstein concluded that, even under most conservative estimates, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people, or about 4.2% of USSRs total population.[78]"
Another challenge for Starmer. Its very hard to attract businesses to an area if basically crime has become legalised.
There is virtually no talk in this GE campaign about all the low level crime of shoplifting, stealing phones, bikes etc, and of course the youth stabbing, including the 12 year old murderer the other day.
San Francisco and Middlesbrough don't have much in common, but this seems to be one thing they do.
Obviously the tech elite live nowhere near SF, so Rishi won't have to live in the equivalent of Middlesbrough when he moves over the pond.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
I didn’t need to be taught about the evils of communism or fascism from school. My grandparents were born in the 1910s and 20s, and my parents in the 50s. I was born in the (early) 1980s. It was self-evident. The first or hand experience is starting to fade. That’s a problem.
We have information about the whole of human history at our finger tips, but people appear more ignorant than ever.
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
Thatcher herself read Chemistry and worked in an icecream factory and then became a lawyer. She was never a professional politician until she won Finchley
At the age of 34 and her first election candidacy was in Dartford at the age of 25. Just to emphasise, this wasn't an era when people woke up at age 45 and became PM.
Another challenge for Starmer. Its very hard to attract businesses to an area if basically crime has become legalised.
There is virtually no talk in this GE campaign about all the low level crime of shoplifting, stealing phones, bikes etc, and of course the youth stabbing, including the 12 year old murderer the other day.
San Francisco and Middlesbrough don't have much in common, but this seems to be one thing they do.
What people fail to realize is that it the Three Strikes Policy in California has made crime massively worse. The police don't want to prosecute third offenses for people because (a) they always go to trial no matter how overwhelming the evidence is, and (b) juries keep refusing to send shoplifters to jail for life.
It is absolutely infuriating that politicians are unable to sit back and go "whoah... something isn't working here..."
Another challenge for Starmer. Its very hard to attract businesses to an area if basically crime has become legalised.
There is virtually no talk in this GE campaign about all the low level crime of shoplifting, stealing phones, bikes etc, and of course the youth stabbing, including the 12 year old murderer the other day.
San Francisco and Middlesbrough don't have much in common, but this seems to be one thing they do.
What people fail to realize is that it the Three Strikes Policy in California has made crime massively worse. The police don't want to prosecute third offenses for people because (a) they always go to trial no matter how overwhelming the evidence is, and (b) juries keep refusing to send shoplifters to jail for life.
It is absolutely infuriating that politicians are unable to sit back and go "whoah... something isn't working here..."
Hold on, but you don't get more than the equivalent of a parking ticket for nicking < $800. I thought three strikes were only for things that aren't misdemeanors? Or am I getting this wrong?
With the news Labour manifesto is going to be a nothing burger, its going to be a very boring few weeks...with tw@tter getting excited over nonsense and thats about it.
Can we not just all get it over and done with now?
Germany has unveiled a plan to reintroduce national service and boost its depleted military, but the plans have been called discriminatory against men.
Teenagers will receive a letter on their 18th birthday asking them to consider between six months and two years in military service. Men will have to fill out their personal details such as fitness, willingness to serve, marital and educational status or risk punishment, possibly a fine.
For women, filling out the questionnaire will be optional.
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
Thatcher could draw on plenty of people who'd thought deeply about the problems facing Britain under the post-war consensus.
This is what's been missing over the last 14 years. The central question that Cameron and his generation were concerned with solving was electoral rather than political, and the ultimate legacy of this has been to make the political problems worse while leaving the party unelectable.
I think that is an excellent point. His and Osborne's formative experiences were being repeatedly humiliated by Blair and they both totally failed to recognise how the financial crash of 2007-08 and worsening demographics made the Blairite settlement of paying more and more taxpayer's money to unreformed and inefficient public services unworkable, not only for a few years of austerity, but probably for a generation.
Germany has unveiled a plan to reintroduce national service and boost its depleted military, but the plans have been called discriminatory against men.
Teenagers will receive a letter on their 18th birthday asking them to consider between six months and two years in military service. Men will have to fill out their personal details such as fitness, willingness to serve, marital and educational status or risk punishment, possibly a fine.
For women, filling out the questionnaire will be optional.
Another challenge for Starmer. Its very hard to attract businesses to an area if basically crime has become legalised.
There is virtually no talk in this GE campaign about all the low level crime of shoplifting, stealing phones, bikes etc, and of course the youth stabbing, including the 12 year old murderer the other day.
San Francisco and Middlesbrough don't have much in common, but this seems to be one thing they do.
What people fail to realize is that it the Three Strikes Policy in California has made crime massively worse. The police don't want to prosecute third offenses for people because (a) they always go to trial no matter how overwhelming the evidence is, and (b) juries keep refusing to send shoplifters to jail for life.
It is absolutely infuriating that politicians are unable to sit back and go "whoah... something isn't working here..."
Hold on, but you don't get more than the equivalent of a parking ticket for nicking < $800. I thought three strikes were only for things that aren't misdemeanors? Or am I getting this wrong?
That's right: they've downgraded shoplifting (below $800) to a misdemeanor because of Three Strikes. It has essentially been decriminalized because it was gumming up the Justice system.
Went through a cupboard in my classroom today. Found a 100 page life skills text book from 2005. It was all about paying tax, buying a house, renting, how mortgages work, bank accounts, etc. The kind of stuff folk (particularly SEN kids) need to know. Each double page had some text, then an explanation, then some exercises based on the real world. In the appendix, every single page was linked to the year 7, 8 and 9 literacy and numeracy curriculum. The curriculum dumped by Gove in favour of novels, clock time and "traditional" English and Maths.
It also had how to register as homeless, claim benefits, apply for a job, make a doctor's appointment, register with a dentist, etc. Made me really sad as to what we are teaching. And why. Critical race theory was nowhere to be seen amazingly.
Gove (and me!) would argue that anyone with an even vaguely adequate education shouldn't need teaching this. They ought to be taught to think and inquire such that it's not necessary to waste precious school time on these sorts of basic life skills.
SEN kids are a special case of course.
But is it really too much to expect of normal adults to be able to figure that out for themselves?
Oh, this explains it, my previous comment. Weird-looking poll, to put it mildly.
Labour are now averaging 41% in the polls, the same share that one Jeremy Corbyn received overall for Labour in 2017 (Great Britain in both cases, not UK).
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
"Mao's policies were responsible for a vast number of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions, and his government has been described as totalitarian."
"In 2011, after assessing twenty years of historical research in Eastern European archives, American historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million, which rise to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account.[76][77] American historian William D. Rubinstein concluded that, even under most conservative estimates, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people, or about 4.2% of USSRs total population.[78]"
Oh, this explains it, my previous comment. Weird-looking poll, to put it mildly.
Labour are now averaging 41% in the polls, the same share that one Jeremy Corbyn received overall for Labour in 2017 (Great Britain in both cases, not UK).
Good morning. I’m not sure Labour will get 40%.
That’s not necessarily a reflection of them or ‘lack of enthusiasm’ but more an electorate prepared to vote for multiple other ways to kick, or boot out, the Conservatives.
I posted on here many months ago that the story of this election will not be how well Labour perform, but how badly the Conservatives do.
And that’s why Labour will win.
Personally I’d love it if the LibDems could be the Opposition but I’d rather not see Farage given any more oxygen than he has, so I’d be very happy with a 100+ seat Labour majority if it happens.
The G7 are working out the details of using frozen Russian assets as backing for more Ukraine aid.
One more Patriot air defence system is also on the way to Ukraine. These cost $1bn each, and can defend a city from enemy aircraft and cruise missiles.
“G7 leaders have agreed in principle to a plan that would provide Ukraine $50 billion in aid by the end of this year, using frozen Russian assets, per a French official.
Bloomberg, AFP, and RFI report that the deal will be finalized after the G7 meeting in Italy later this week.”
Went through a cupboard in my classroom today. Found a 100 page life skills text book from 2005. It was all about paying tax, buying a house, renting, how mortgages work, bank accounts, etc. The kind of stuff folk (particularly SEN kids) need to know. Each double page had some text, then an explanation, then some exercises based on the real world. In the appendix, every single page was linked to the year 7, 8 and 9 literacy and numeracy curriculum. The curriculum dumped by Gove in favour of novels, clock time and "traditional" English and Maths.
You've clearly got some gained time on your hands.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
I didn’t need to be taught about the evils of communism or fascism from school. My grandparents were born in the 1910s and 20s, and my parents in the 50s. I was born in the (early) 1980s. It was self-evident. The first or hand experience is starting to fade. That’s a problem.
I put communism and fascism on the same level of evil. I find it both amusing and worrying that posters - including on here - can say that next time we try it, communism will work. Next time will be different.
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
Thatcher could draw on plenty of people who'd thought deeply about the problems facing Britain under the post-war consensus.
This is what's been missing over the last 14 years. The central question that Cameron and his generation were concerned with solving was electoral rather than political, and the ultimate legacy of this has been to make the political problems worse while leaving the party unelectable.
There's large element of truth in that - and of course his successors were even worse in that respect.
But your analysis is also true of his predecessors. And not a few of our current problems have their roots in the Thatcher era.
That sounds like an extreme case: the cyclist was drunk and riding one-handed whilst carrying some shopping. She was on the pavement and her bike had no brakes.
I was once walking into work in Cambridge. There are three trees on the pavement on a bend, obscuring the view. I went for one gap as a cyclist came towards me fast; he was riding one-handed whilst talking on a mobile phone, and had his kid on a carrier on the back of the bike. I had to dive for cover as he went for the same gap as me.
(And no, cyclist lobby; it is not, and was not, a cycle path.)
GB News is going to poison politics here, just as Fox has in the USA.
I mean Farage can afford to skip interviews and debates because he has his own platform pitching softballs and propaganda every single day.
The Tories should rue the day they failed to regulate it properly. It’s destroying them from the inside.
Goid morning ,PBers.
Crucially, though, it's still under various Ofcom regulations to add balance in the form of the ratio of contributors. If Johnson had got Dacre into thar job, as he wanted, we'd be in even more trouble.
Went through a cupboard in my classroom today. Found a 100 page life skills text book from 2005. It was all about paying tax, buying a house, renting, how mortgages work, bank accounts, etc. The kind of stuff folk (particularly SEN kids) need to know. Each double page had some text, then an explanation, then some exercises based on the real world. In the appendix, every single page was linked to the year 7, 8 and 9 literacy and numeracy curriculum. The curriculum dumped by Gove in favour of novels, clock time and "traditional" English and Maths.
Give trashed an enormous amount if teaching resources - particularly at the primary level.
Coming back to the ‘debate,’ Sky's Jon Craig has written up his analysis, poorly. There are about 10 totally avoidable errors in this article. Just careless mistakes or deliberate, I’m not sure.
What I don’t like is sloppy journalism such as this:
'Mr Sunak even stumbled into a blunder that will reinforce his critics' claim that this millionaire prime minister is out of touch with the cost of living plight ordinary people are facing.
When a father asked about his daughter's struggle to buy a house, Mr Sunak talked about a property costing £425,000. In Grimsby? Oh dear. Really, prime minister!
A Rightmove search for Grimsby reveals that out of 914 properties currently listed for sale in the town, only 13 are up for £425,000 or more. His political opponents will seize on that.’
It’s quite irritating because that is NOT what Rishi Sunak said. He was talking about help to buy and to abolish stamp duty ‘up to £425,000’ not at £425,000
But the audience laughed about it and Jon Craig did the populist thing that all poor journalists do, glossed over the detail to score a point.
I’m no defender of Rishi Sunak and he was pretty flat last night but the standard of broadcasting and journalism in this country isn’t very high. I don’t think it’s only GB News that’s the problem.
p.s. another sloppy comment is to state that Sunak won last week’s debate. Er, well maybe narrowly with the one pollster that Sky use (YouGov) but not with the other two he didn’t. So why not say so and report it correctly?
Coming back to the ‘debate,’ Sky's Jon Craig has written up his analysis, poorly. There are about 10 totally avoidable errors in this article. Just careless mistakes or deliberate, I’m not sure.
What I don’t like is sloppy journalism such as this:
'Mr Sunak even stumbled into a blunder that will reinforce his critics' claim that this millionaire prime minister is out of touch with the cost of living plight ordinary people are facing.
When a father asked about his daughter's struggle to buy a house, Mr Sunak talked about a property costing £425,000. In Grimsby? Oh dear. Really, prime minister!
A Rightmove search for Grimsby reveals that out of 914 properties currently listed for sale in the town, only 13 are up for £425,000 or more. His political opponents will seize on that.’
It’s quite irritating because that is NOT what Rishi Sunak said. He was talking about help to buy and to abolish stamp duty ‘up to £425,000’ not at £425,000
But the audience laughed about it and Jon Craig did the populist thing that all poor journalists do, glossed over the detail to score a point.
I’m no defender of Rishi Sunak and he was pretty flat last night but the standard of broadcasting and journalism in this country isn’t very high. I don’t think it’s only GB News that’s the problem.
p.s. another sloppy comment is to state that Sunak won last week’s debate. Er, well maybe narrowly with the one pollster that Sky use (YouGov) but not with the other two he didn’t. So why not say so and report it correctly?
A journalist from one of the papers made the same error on Sky last night, and wasn’t picked up on it. It was pretty sloppy stuff.
I’ve decided. I really hope Reform kills off the Conservative Party at this election. The Conservatives have to die ( ex-councillor and constituency association chairman).
I struggle to understand why this incarnation simply couldn't deliver.
The Thatcher and Major administrations did.
I think that centralised control over candidate selection meant we finished up with lightweights, who were there to line their own pockets.
Starmer has ensured the NEC is just as centralised in terms of Labour candidates shortlists, see their imposition of their own candidates in Chingford and Brighton Kemptown over local Labour parties choices
The first problem with both main parties is that you used to have people who had a career in something else and then moved into politics in their 40s or 50s. Now we have too many people where politics is a job for life so they go PPE at Oxbridge - SPAD - MP. The second problem with both parties is that by centralising selections the types of people who get picked tend to be well-connected middle-class people from London, who then get foisted on provincial seats and have no real affinity with them.
Cameron, Clegg, the Milibands, Hague largely followed that course, as did Portillo (except he read history not PPE). May read geography and then went to the Bank of England.
Rishi though was in finance for a number of years after PPE, Hunt and Truss and Reeves in business after PPE (Reeves also like May at the Bank of England). Starmer read law not PPE and was a barrister and head of the CPS, Blair also read law and was a barrister first as was Michael Howard. Boris read classics and was a journalist first not a SPAD. Brown read history and was a college lecturer.
Farage and Corbyn never even graduated from university of course and neither were SPADs, Farage worked in the city and Corbyn was a trade union rep and local councillor before election as an MP. IDS was a non graduate as well and in the army first
When you look at Thatcher's first cabinet, it is an interesting mix of soldiers (both WW2 and post-WW2), lawyers, business (tending towards business rather than 'finance'). And far more Cambridge graduates than Oxford PPE types. 😀
Thatcher could draw on plenty of people who'd thought deeply about the problems facing Britain under the post-war consensus.
This is what's been missing over the last 14 years. The central question that Cameron and his generation were concerned with solving was electoral rather than political, and the ultimate legacy of this has been to make the political problems worse while leaving the party unelectable.
Went through a cupboard in my classroom today. Found a 100 page life skills text book from 2005. It was all about paying tax, buying a house, renting, how mortgages work, bank accounts, etc. The kind of stuff folk (particularly SEN kids) need to know. Each double page had some text, then an explanation, then some exercises based on the real world. In the appendix, every single page was linked to the year 7, 8 and 9 literacy and numeracy curriculum. The curriculum dumped by Gove in favour of novels, clock time and "traditional" English and Maths.
Give trashed an enormous amount if teaching resources - particularly at the primary level.
Most of the primary teachers I know despise him.
Yep, the idea that Gove was some sort of saviour of education is utterly risible.
He believes that sitting a child in a little desk to chalk and talk at them about grammar and maths = good education.
It’s another good example of a bright person being a complete clown when it comes to common sense and awareness of other people’s multiple learning styles. What works for one brain in a vat, doesn’t work for other more normal human beings. So you need to be adaptive and creative. Two words that don’t come comfortably to heavily ideological career politicians.
We’re back to the point about too many MPs not having a clue about everyday life and work. It would be great, for example, to see some teachers and deputy / head teachers make it into Parliament after a career in the classroom.
You know, people who have an actual clue what they’re on about.
p.s. reminds me of the amusing remark that someone from a classroom visiting the DfES noted: the one sound you will never hear inside the Department of Education is that of a child.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
When I was at school the Brits won the war on their own. That why we are such a fucked up country which does crazy things like vote Brexit and think Farage is the Messiah
Germany has unveiled a plan to reintroduce national service and boost its depleted military, but the plans have been called discriminatory against men.
Teenagers will receive a letter on their 18th birthday asking them to consider between six months and two years in military service. Men will have to fill out their personal details such as fitness, willingness to serve, marital and educational status or risk punishment, possibly a fine.
For women, filling out the questionnaire will be optional.
Germany has unveiled a plan to reintroduce national service and boost its depleted military, but the plans have been called discriminatory against men.
Teenagers will receive a letter on their 18th birthday asking them to consider between six months and two years in military service. Men will have to fill out their personal details such as fitness, willingness to serve, marital and educational status or risk punishment, possibly a fine.
For women, filling out the questionnaire will be optional.
That is a MASSIVE drop in Labour VI. I said a couple of days ago they will be nervous at the slide and was decried on here, they will be more than nervous now
No. They won’t. I decried you then and I decry you now. This is a PP reversion to the mean from the stupid LAB VI they had before.
Of course, dear. You’re not nervous at all
What kind of numbers do you think Labour could drift out too, and (presumably) the Tories gain, to bring the majority into question?
I'm sure if we Baxter them it will still bring a sizeable Labour majority
I honestly have no idea, does anyone? Reform could continue their rise - or fall back. Labour could continue to slide, or surge again
it’s a long campaign and neither of the big parties has much enthusiasm behind them, but the Tories are viscerally hated and Labour are merely tolerated as an alternative - for now
If I was in the Lib Dems I would be shouting loudly about Single Market membership immediately to peel off Labour Remainers, and then also a promise of referendum on Rejoin in a few years. That would be cat in the pigeons territory and could upend everything
I’ve no idea why they aren’t slotting this open goal
I will shit my boxers with pleasure if Labour slip into the 30s on the night.
Probably the one pleasure I will get. It will set off all sorts of internal recriminations and legitimacy questions, which will dog SKS for his whole time in office.
This is disingenuous, as well as untrue.
One of the reasons Labour are, or may, poll sub 40 (I think it will be 37-39.5%) is because there’s a much more savvy anti-tory vote now. I’m a case in point but just one of millions. I want to vote Labour, naturally, but I’m voting LibDem to unseat the tory MP.
So make up whatever discourse you want on the night if that makes you happy but it won’t be objective truth.
GB News is going to poison politics here, just as Fox has in the USA.
I mean Farage can afford to skip interviews and debates because he has his own platform pitching softballs and propaganda every single day.
The Tories should rue the day they failed to regulate it properly. It’s destroying them from the inside.
One of the worst thing America has done to their own politics is get rid of the fairness doctrine.
The inpartialiry part of Ofcom is essentially the last vestiges of the IBA, which Thatcher destroyed partly at the behest of Murdoch. We're no longer getting the regulation of the proportions of public service content, which was very importabt to the debasenebt of our broadcasting in the '90s on terrns of intellectual quality, but we are still just about getting some regulation of impartiality to hold us back from the worst, U.S-styile outcome.
Be glad for small mercies, I say, on this bright sunny morning.
That is a MASSIVE drop in Labour VI. I said a couple of days ago they will be nervous at the slide and was decried on here, they will be more than nervous now
No. They won’t. I decried you then and I decry you now. This is a PP reversion to the mean from the stupid LAB VI they had before.
Of course, dear. You’re not nervous at all
What kind of numbers do you think Labour could drift out too, and (presumably) the Tories gain, to bring the majority into question?
I'm sure if we Baxter them it will still bring a sizeable Labour majority
I honestly have no idea, does anyone? Reform could continue their rise - or fall back. Labour could continue to slide, or surge again
it’s a long campaign and neither of the big parties has much enthusiasm behind them, but the Tories are viscerally hated and Labour are merely tolerated as an alternative - for now
If I was in the Lib Dems I would be shouting loudly about Single Market membership immediately to peel off Labour Remainers, and then also a promise of referendum on Rejoin in a few years. That would be cat in the pigeons territory and could upend everything
I’ve no idea why they aren’t slotting this open goal
I will shit my boxers with pleasure if Labour slip into the 30s on the night.
Probably the one pleasure I will get. It will set off all sorts of internal recriminations and legitimacy questions, which will dog SKS for his whole time in office.
This is disingenuous, as well as untrue.
One of the reasons Labour are, or may, poll sub 40 (I think it will be 37-39.5%) is because there’s a much more savvy anti-tory vote now. I’m a case in point but just one of millions. I want to vote Labour, naturally, but I’m voting LibDem to unseat the tory MP.
So make up whatever discourse you want on the night if that makes you happy but it won’t be objective truth.
If BJO's was the most ugly of the 912 posts I waded through CRs was the most bonkers!
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
I didn’t need to be taught about the evils of communism or fascism from school. My grandparents were born in the 1910s and 20s, and my parents in the 50s. I was born in the (early) 1980s. It was self-evident. The first or hand experience is starting to fade. That’s a problem.
I put communism and fascism on the same level of evil. I find it both amusing and worrying that posters - including on here - can say that next time we try it, communism will work. Next time will be different.
I think there is far too much focus on the cartoonish representation of historical figures and national mythology rather than exposition of and critical reflection about the underlying structure of totalitarian ideas that ensnare people into utopianism and hatred. People are seduced by promises made on unobtainable futures. Focusing on the imperfect as opposed to perfection and the capacity for hatred to grow in that gap. We should read: Hannah Arendt's work on Eichmann, Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies. Barrington Moore: The social origins of dictatorship and democracy. Seymore Lipset.
There once was a man called Farage Who ran a quite seedy garage He sold many used cars* And hung round in bars But the whole thing was a fucking mirage.
*That's a reference to one of his speeches. Will check back later to see if anyone got it.
The Tories aren't going to win zero seats, because RefUK aren't standing in Gavin Williamson's new constituency, and the only way they would have lost that one would have been because of a split vote with Farage's party.
They could always throw their weight behind the UKIP candidate or someone else. Not that their weight counts for much. But someone should unseat the little xxxx.
The one Lib Dem who watches could be an interesting case study ;-) I suspect one of the "don't fund hate" lot being forced to watch it to organise the pile on of anybody who dares to run an ad on there.
I don't think the formation of GB News has been very helpful to the Tory party cause (maybe that was the intension of the founders). It will be interesting post GE if the Tories lean into trying to win that audience by moving further to the right or ignore them.
Yes, it's all those dreadful rightwingers fault for making such a fuss that we imported 1.5million people. If only everyone had shut up about it, we'd be cruising for Sunak landslide.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
Well, Stalin killed an awful lot of Nazis too, so there's that.
Easy to give orders from far away when it is other people dying to execute them.
That is a MASSIVE drop in Labour VI. I said a couple of days ago they will be nervous at the slide and was decried on here, they will be more than nervous now
No. They won’t. I decried you then and I decry you now. This is a PP reversion to the mean from the stupid LAB VI they had before.
Of course, dear. You’re not nervous at all
What kind of numbers do you think Labour could drift out too, and (presumably) the Tories gain, to bring the majority into question?
I'm sure if we Baxter them it will still bring a sizeable Labour majority
I honestly have no idea, does anyone? Reform could continue their rise - or fall back. Labour could continue to slide, or surge again
it’s a long campaign and neither of the big parties has much enthusiasm behind them, but the Tories are viscerally hated and Labour are merely tolerated as an alternative - for now
If I was in the Lib Dems I would be shouting loudly about Single Market membership immediately to peel off Labour Remainers, and then also a promise of referendum on Rejoin in a few years. That would be cat in the pigeons territory and could upend everything
I’ve no idea why they aren’t slotting this open goal
I will shit my boxers with pleasure if Labour slip into the 30s on the night.
Probably the one pleasure I will get. It will set off all sorts of internal recriminations and legitimacy questions, which will dog SKS for his whole time in office.
This is disingenuous, as well as untrue.
One of the reasons Labour are, or may, poll sub 40 (I think it will be 37-39.5%) is because there’s a much more savvy anti-tory vote now. I’m a case in point but just one of millions. I want to vote Labour, naturally, but I’m voting LibDem to unseat the tory MP.
So make up whatever discourse you want on the night if that makes you happy but it won’t be objective truth.
It’s a change election, that much is obvious.
Starmer by positioning Labour within a fag paper of the Tories, which is usually the successful strategy has left himself vulnerable to the charge of ‘they’re all the same’. That Sunak is collapsing the Tories is causing a backdraft that dragging those closeby with him. It’s a bit like that scene from Titanic, when the sinking ship sucked others below the water.
Whilst ultimately the grown up sensible change offered by Starmer will ultimately prevail, right now the popular outrage at Sunak is giving momentum to more radical change platforms right now. It’s like the Clegggasm.
Germany has unveiled a plan to reintroduce national service and boost its depleted military, but the plans have been called discriminatory against men.
Teenagers will receive a letter on their 18th birthday asking them to consider between six months and two years in military service. Men will have to fill out their personal details such as fitness, willingness to serve, marital and educational status or risk punishment, possibly a fine.
For women, filling out the questionnaire will be optional.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
I didn’t need to be taught about the evils of communism or fascism from school. My grandparents were born in the 1910s and 20s, and my parents in the 50s. I was born in the (early) 1980s. It was self-evident. The first or hand experience is starting to fade. That’s a problem.
I put communism and fascism on the same level of evil. I find it both amusing and worrying that posters - including on here - can say that next time we try it, communism will work. Next time will be different.
I think there is far too much focus on the cartoonish representation of historical figures and national mythology rather than exposition of and critical reflection about the underlying structure of totalitarian ideas that ensnare people into utopianism and hatred. People are seduced by promises made on unobtainable futures. Focusing on the imperfect as opposed to perfection and the capacity for hatred to grow in that gap. We should read: Hannah Arendt's work on Eichmann, Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies. Barrington Moore: The social origins of dictatorship and democracy. Seymore Lipset.
Glad to see people still read Barrington Moore.
His is one of the most thoughtful books on the subject I ever came across, and as far as I am aware the thesis has never been discredited.
Coming back to the ‘debate,’ Sky's Jon Craig has written up his analysis, poorly. There are about 10 totally avoidable errors in this article. Just careless mistakes or deliberate, I’m not sure.
What I don’t like is sloppy journalism such as this:
'Mr Sunak even stumbled into a blunder that will reinforce his critics' claim that this millionaire prime minister is out of touch with the cost of living plight ordinary people are facing.
When a father asked about his daughter's struggle to buy a house, Mr Sunak talked about a property costing £425,000. In Grimsby? Oh dear. Really, prime minister!
A Rightmove search for Grimsby reveals that out of 914 properties currently listed for sale in the town, only 13 are up for £425,000 or more. His political opponents will seize on that.’
It’s quite irritating because that is NOT what Rishi Sunak said. He was talking about help to buy and to abolish stamp duty ‘up to £425,000’ not at £425,000
But the audience laughed about it and Jon Craig did the populist thing that all poor journalists do, glossed over the detail to score a point.
I’m no defender of Rishi Sunak and he was pretty flat last night but the standard of broadcasting and journalism in this country isn’t very high. I don’t think it’s only GB News that’s the problem.
p.s. another sloppy comment is to state that Sunak won last week’s debate. Er, well maybe narrowly with the one pollster that Sky use (YouGov) but not with the other two he didn’t. So why not say so and report it correctly?
Craig is one of the most partisan reporters around, so not a surprise.
That moment demonstrated how tricky events like last night are. Sky have been banging on about Grimsby all year, but, the participants obviously have to talk beyond just Grimsby. It needed Sunak to be a little cleverer and say that the policy helps people elsewhere where house prices are higher (though, probably not in London!).
I actually am wrong about Rishi's career, because if anything he's had by some measures a very successful career, it is just on hyperspeed, as befits this tech bro age - get elected, become a minister, PM, then lose your seat (potentially) unless than 10 years.
I saw Gillian Keegan interviewed and was curious how she'd made it into the Cabinet-any Cabinet! In short she bumped into Justine Greening at a college event in 2015 who said why don't you try politics? She did and got a seat in 2017 then a couple of PPS jobs and bobs your uncle.
Coming back to the ‘debate,’ Sky's Jon Craig has written up his analysis, poorly. There are about 10 totally avoidable errors in this article. Just careless mistakes or deliberate, I’m not sure.
What I don’t like is sloppy journalism such as this:
'Mr Sunak even stumbled into a blunder that will reinforce his critics' claim that this millionaire prime minister is out of touch with the cost of living plight ordinary people are facing.
When a father asked about his daughter's struggle to buy a house, Mr Sunak talked about a property costing £425,000. In Grimsby? Oh dear. Really, prime minister!
A Rightmove search for Grimsby reveals that out of 914 properties currently listed for sale in the town, only 13 are up for £425,000 or more. His political opponents will seize on that.’
It’s quite irritating because that is NOT what Rishi Sunak said. He was talking about help to buy and to abolish stamp duty ‘up to £425,000’ not at £425,000
But the audience laughed about it and Jon Craig did the populist thing that all poor journalists do, glossed over the detail to score a point.
I’m no defender of Rishi Sunak and he was pretty flat last night but the standard of broadcasting and journalism in this country isn’t very high. I don’t think it’s only GB News that’s the problem.
p.s. another sloppy comment is to state that Sunak won last week’s debate. Er, well maybe narrowly with the one pollster that Sky use (YouGov) but not with the other two he didn’t. So why not say so and report it correctly?
The trouble is that too many journalists want to set the agenda rather than merely report on the agenda that is being set. That leads to highly selective reporting, it also leads to dumpster fires like GB News. It is rammed to the gills on that channel with wannabe politicians or failed or failing politicians. And the trouble is that they can’t help themselves from switching into campaign mode. So GB News has become a propaganda outlet not a serious news resource. It’s not great.
It will be fascinating to see the volte-face by liberal middle-aged men on here if the young turn rapidly to the right in the coming years.
There’s no reason to assume the UK is different to other advanced democracies.
So how, then, can we explain why it is different now? If it's different now why should it be the same in the future? The fact we've been governed into the ground by Thatcherism and its cosplay version for 45 years, rather than by social/Christian democratic consensus?
Every Western democracy is high tax/ high spend/ high regulate, regardless of the rhetoric.
As you perceive it. So why are the young in this country overwhelmingly of the Left and the old of the Right? To an extent not seen in any other developed nation?
Young people will look for radical alternatives to the current system, they will eventuallyj get attracted to the 'right' because of reactive dynamics. The thing that makes this more likely in my view is the 'right' is forbidden, outlawed through hate speech laws, lectured about in schools, people being sent to prison on dubious charges, etc. All this just makes it more and more attractive. It is what has happened in Europe and it will be likely to happen in the UK.
Simply saying that it is likely they will become so, does not explain why it isn't the case thus far. The Right has been the dominant narrative in UK politics for 45 years. Hate speech, well. Being an arsehole is frowned upon, yes. Absolutely no one is lectured about politics in schools. There's zero space in a bullshit curriculum of nonsense of little relevance to the modern world. Yes young people will look for radical alternatives, but they are of the Left overwhelmingly in comparison to other comparable nations right here, right now. So. I ask again. Why is that?
I have met a few Gen Z via my younger son (who will vote LD) who are Communists, even to the point of liking Stalin and Mao. Not students either, one is a chef.
I didn't start an argument, but his idea of what life under Communism was like is seriously mis-informed. The Iron Curtain fell a dozen years before he was born, so just history from a book, or more likely TikTok. Nice lad in other ways and good housemate of Foxjr2.
I find it horrifying that people can find anything good in the legacy of Stalin or Mao. How many millions of deaths because of them?
I don't think I was ever taught anything about Mao, Marx, etc in school. A bit about Lenin and that Stalin, he was the bloke who led the Russian and he was on our side....Then it was pretty much British history, Empire, slaves, etc.
I think there is a large collective blindspot to the fact the Hitler / Nazi's aren't the only super baddies in history.
I didn’t need to be taught about the evils of communism or fascism from school. My grandparents were born in the 1910s and 20s, and my parents in the 50s. I was born in the (early) 1980s. It was self-evident. The first or hand experience is starting to fade. That’s a problem.
I put communism and fascism on the same level of evil. I find it both amusing and worrying that posters - including on here - can say that next time we try it, communism will work. Next time will be different.
I think there is far too much focus on the cartoonish representation of historical figures and national mythology rather than exposition of and critical reflection about the underlying structure of totalitarian ideas that ensnare people into utopianism and hatred. People are seduced by promises made on unobtainable futures. Focusing on the imperfect as opposed to perfection and the capacity for hatred to grow in that gap. We should read: Hannah Arendt's work on Eichmann, Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies. Barrington Moore: The social origins of dictatorship and democracy. Seymore Lipset.
I agree, and have extensive knowledge of these things, but the point is that I grew up in the Cold War, with attitudes and knowledge shaped by it, but to those born a decade later its ancient history.
Our TV and history channels have a Nazi obsession, but are very light on other totalitarian regimes, some of which survive to the present day.
Coming back to the ‘debate,’ Sky's Jon Craig has written up his analysis, poorly. There are about 10 totally avoidable errors in this article. Just careless mistakes or deliberate, I’m not sure.
What I don’t like is sloppy journalism such as this:
'Mr Sunak even stumbled into a blunder that will reinforce his critics' claim that this millionaire prime minister is out of touch with the cost of living plight ordinary people are facing.
When a father asked about his daughter's struggle to buy a house, Mr Sunak talked about a property costing £425,000. In Grimsby? Oh dear. Really, prime minister!
A Rightmove search for Grimsby reveals that out of 914 properties currently listed for sale in the town, only 13 are up for £425,000 or more. His political opponents will seize on that.’
It’s quite irritating because that is NOT what Rishi Sunak said. He was talking about help to buy and to abolish stamp duty ‘up to £425,000’ not at £425,000
But the audience laughed about it and Jon Craig did the populist thing that all poor journalists do, glossed over the detail to score a point.
I’m no defender of Rishi Sunak and he was pretty flat last night but the standard of broadcasting and journalism in this country isn’t very high. I don’t think it’s only GB News that’s the problem.
p.s. another sloppy comment is to state that Sunak won last week’s debate. Er, well maybe narrowly with the one pollster that Sky use (YouGov) but not with the other two he didn’t. So why not say so and report it correctly?
The trouble is that too many journalists want to set the agenda rather than merely report on the agenda that is being set. That leads to highly selective reporting, it also leads to dumpster fires like GB News. It is rammed to the gills on that channel with wannabe politicians or failed or failing politicians. And the trouble is that they can’t help themselves from switching into campaign mode. So GB News has become a propaganda outlet not a serious news resource. It’s not great.
I'd go so far as to say it's not great, it's not British and it's not news
GB News is going to poison politics here, just as Fox has in the USA.
I mean Farage can afford to skip interviews and debates because he has his own platform pitching softballs and propaganda every single day.
The Tories should rue the day they failed to regulate it properly. It’s destroying them from the inside.
How is he skipping interviews and debates? Seems desperate to do them.
He seems pretty careful about who interviews him. Nobody too bright or combative.
So you have no reports on him turning down interviews with anyone. Also he's not on GBNews during this campaign - as with other politicians turned GBNews presenters he has left for the campaign.
It's fairly appalling that you think it would have been a good idea for the Tories to regulate a right wing news outlet out of existence (keeping all the left wing consensus ones of course) because of a perceived electoral advantage in doing so. It shows a unthinking disregard for free speech.
Someone at the Telegraph has obviously been upset by British Airways, perhaps they didn’t get an upgrade. This hit-piece, and the comments under it, could have come from The Sun.
Plane has a minor warning light come on for an engine, so they turned around and came back to base rather than landing in the middle of nowhere in Northern Canada.
Coming back to the ‘debate,’ Sky's Jon Craig has written up his analysis, poorly. There are about 10 totally avoidable errors in this article. Just careless mistakes or deliberate, I’m not sure.
What I don’t like is sloppy journalism such as this:
'Mr Sunak even stumbled into a blunder that will reinforce his critics' claim that this millionaire prime minister is out of touch with the cost of living plight ordinary people are facing.
When a father asked about his daughter's struggle to buy a house, Mr Sunak talked about a property costing £425,000. In Grimsby? Oh dear. Really, prime minister!
A Rightmove search for Grimsby reveals that out of 914 properties currently listed for sale in the town, only 13 are up for £425,000 or more. His political opponents will seize on that.’
It’s quite irritating because that is NOT what Rishi Sunak said. He was talking about help to buy and to abolish stamp duty ‘up to £425,000’ not at £425,000
But the audience laughed about it and Jon Craig did the populist thing that all poor journalists do, glossed over the detail to score a point.
I’m no defender of Rishi Sunak and he was pretty flat last night but the standard of broadcasting and journalism in this country isn’t very high. I don’t think it’s only GB News that’s the problem.
p.s. another sloppy comment is to state that Sunak won last week’s debate. Er, well maybe narrowly with the one pollster that Sky use (YouGov) but not with the other two he didn’t. So why not say so and report it correctly?
The trouble is that too many journalists want to set the agenda rather than merely report on the agenda that is being set. That leads to highly selective reporting, it also leads to dumpster fires like GB News. It is rammed to the gills on that channel with wannabe politicians or failed or failing politicians. And the trouble is that they can’t help themselves from switching into campaign mode. So GB News has become a propaganda outlet not a serious news resource. It’s not great.
This post is entirely based on value judgements which are in turn based on the modern consensus, which itself is not 'neutral' or impartial in any meaningful way. As an example, Net Zero is a highly radical programme of policies, with an enormous price tag, to achieve goals that are, given the UK's minimal contribution to world emissions, of secondary importance at best. The mainstream broadcasters have a clear line on Net Zero that isn't neutral. GBNews has presenters that question Net Zero, but also has a token lefty pundit on every show to put the opposing view. Which one of them is neutral and which one of them 'in campaign mode'? The answer depends entirely on your perspective.
Space Karen has made all of Twitter's like's private now.
Does this mean that politicians getting into trouble for liking troublesome posts is now in the past?
(I think private likes are a bad thing for a number of reasons.)
Might make sense, because the gotchas are often so out of context.
What bothers me even more are the algorithms. How they actively and relentlessly reinforce the content you engage with. It’s not healthy.
It's not - but you do have a choice what content you engage with. XTwitter merely reinforces your worst tendencies. The trick is to control them yourself.
GB News is going to poison politics here, just as Fox has in the USA.
I mean Farage can afford to skip interviews and debates because he has his own platform pitching softballs and propaganda every single day.
The Tories should rue the day they failed to regulate it properly. It’s destroying them from the inside.
How is he skipping interviews and debates? Seems desperate to do them.
He seems pretty careful about who interviews him. Nobody too bright or combative.
So you have no reports on him turning down interviews with anyone. Also he's not on GBNews during this campaign - as with other politicians turned GBNews presenters he has left for the campaign.
It's fairly appalling that you think it would have been a good idea for the Tories to regulate a right wing news outlet out of existence (keeping all the left wing consensus ones of course) because of a perceived electoral advantage in doing so. It shows a unthinking disregard for free speech.
Apart from that, great post.
He declined an interview with Nick Robinson just 2 days ago.
And yes, GB News is cancer. I’d like to see it subject to the same rules as all other broadcasters.
Someone at the Telegraph has obviously been upset by British Airways, perhaps they didn’t get an upgrade. This hit-piece, and the comments under it, could have come from The Sun.
Plane has a minor warning light come on for an engine, so they turned around and came back to base rather than landing in the middle of nowhere in Northern Canada.
It hasn’t been a serious newspaper for a while now.
Comments
I think Reform being ahead in London perhaps says something significant.
The young are overwhelmingly Left.
That's OK cos they soon won't be. Cos other countries.
And some (what proportion?) are into Stalin and Mao.
So the fact they overwhelmingly don't agree with me is totally invalidated.
Why don't they agree with me?
Until the right stop using these arguments and awaiting the inevitable incel revolution, rather than attempting to understand why they aren't getting any traction at all right here right now, not in a mythical projected future, then they are heading for defeat.
Do I have to do your work for you?
Though a bit more world perspective in the history at school would be better
This is what's been missing over the last 14 years. The central question that Cameron and his generation were concerned with solving was electoral rather than political, and the ultimate legacy of this has been to make the political problems worse while leaving the party unelectable.
Reform leads by 44% among those who primarily get their TV news from GB News.
Westminster VI, GB News Viewers (7-10 June):
Reform UK 60%
Conservative 16%
Labour 13%
Liberal Democrat 1%
Other 4%
Don't Know 5%
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1800927355440902395
I don't think the formation of GB News has been very helpful to the Tory party cause (maybe that was the intension of the founders). It will be interesting post GE if the Tories lean into trying to win that audience by moving further to the right or ignore them.
That has been the dominant narrative of 45 years.
Leading to a financocracy. Where the sums outweigh logic and basic decency.
That is the crucial difference between us and other countries.
Reductio ad absurdum. We've ended up with a finance PM with no connection to real life, real people, or even finance.
Slightly stranger shot is Montgomeryshire & Glyndŵr, Montgomery is farmer country, safe Tory but has elected Lib Dems in the past (Lembit Opik). the Glyndŵr bit is more old coalfield, UKIP did very well in Clwyd South (15.6%) in GE15 and that swung over to the Tories to be a gain in GE19. My gut feeling is that the UKIP vote would have been higher in the bit that is now in Montgomeryshire & Glyndŵr. If a lot of those Tories went over to Reform and the Labour and Lib Dem vote split fairly evenly then Reform's value on 33/1.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7227ve4e9yo
Another challenge for Starmer. Its very hard to attract businesses to an area if basically crime has become legalised.
There is virtually no talk in this GE campaign about all the low level crime of shoplifting, stealing phones, bikes etc, and of course the youth stabbing, including the 12 year old murderer the other day.
When writing a haiku online
Pedants are everywhere
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/13/keir-starmer-uk-election-labour-manifesto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
"In 2011, after assessing twenty years of historical research in Eastern European archives, American historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million, which rise to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account.[76][77] American historian William D. Rubinstein concluded that, even under most conservative estimates, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people, or about 4.2% of USSRs total population.[78]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
It is absolutely infuriating that politicians are unable to sit back and go "whoah... something isn't working here..."
Can we not just all get it over and done with now?
Teenagers will receive a letter on their 18th birthday asking them to consider between six months and two years in military service. Men will have to fill out their personal details such as fitness, willingness to serve, marital and educational status or risk punishment, possibly a fine.
For women, filling out the questionnaire will be optional.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/12/german-national-service-plan-discriminates-against-men/
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1801040197296996782
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c51187kpz4rt#Scorecard
SEN kids are a special case of course.
But is it really too much to expect of normal adults to be able to figure that out for themselves?
I mean, maybe it is. I'm not an education expert.
Labour are now averaging 41% in the polls, the same share that one Jeremy Corbyn received overall for Labour in 2017 (Great Britain in both cases, not UK).
That’s not necessarily a reflection of them or ‘lack of enthusiasm’ but more an electorate prepared to vote for multiple other ways to kick, or boot out, the Conservatives.
I posted on here many months ago that the story of this election will not be how well Labour perform, but how badly the Conservatives do.
And that’s why Labour will win.
Personally I’d love it if the LibDems could be the Opposition but I’d rather not see Farage given any more oxygen than he has, so I’d be very happy with a 100+ seat Labour majority if it happens.
One more Patriot air defence system is also on the way to Ukraine. These cost $1bn each, and can defend a city from enemy aircraft and cruise missiles.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1800965204911493603?s=61
“G7 leaders have agreed in principle to a plan that would provide Ukraine $50 billion in aid by the end of this year, using frozen Russian assets, per a French official.
Bloomberg, AFP, and RFI report that the deal will be finalized after the G7 meeting in Italy later this week.”
I just wonder why this law could not have been used in the demented cyclist who mowed down and killed an old lady in London recently
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx88g1v8en7o
But your analysis is also true of his predecessors. And not a few of our current problems have their roots in the Thatcher era.
I was once walking into work in Cambridge. There are three trees on the pavement on a bend, obscuring the view. I went for one gap as a cyclist came towards me fast; he was riding one-handed whilst talking on a mobile phone, and had his kid on a carrier on the back of the bike. I had to dive for cover as he went for the same gap as me.
(And no, cyclist lobby; it is not, and was not, a cycle path.)
I mean Farage can afford to skip interviews and debates because he has his own platform pitching softballs and propaganda every single day.
The Tories should rue the day they failed to regulate it properly. It’s destroying them from the inside.
Crucially, though, it's still under various Ofcom regulations to add balance in the form of the ratio of contributors. If Johnson had got Dacre into thar job, as he wanted, we'd be in even more trouble.
Most of the primary teachers I know despise him.
What I don’t like is sloppy journalism such as this:
'Mr Sunak even stumbled into a blunder that will reinforce his critics' claim that this millionaire prime minister is out of touch with the cost of living plight ordinary people are facing.
When a father asked about his daughter's struggle to buy a house, Mr Sunak talked about a property costing £425,000. In Grimsby? Oh dear. Really, prime minister!
A Rightmove search for Grimsby reveals that out of 914 properties currently listed for sale in the town, only 13 are up for £425,000 or more. His political opponents will seize on that.’
It’s quite irritating because that is NOT what Rishi Sunak said. He was talking about help to buy and to abolish stamp duty ‘up to £425,000’ not at £425,000
But the audience laughed about it and Jon Craig did the populist thing that all poor journalists do, glossed over the detail to score a point.
I’m no defender of Rishi Sunak and he was pretty flat last night but the standard of broadcasting and journalism in this country isn’t very high. I don’t think it’s only GB News that’s the problem.
https://news.sky.com/story/keir-starmer-raised-his-game-as-rishi-sunak-fell-flat-in-sky-news-leaders-event-13152170
p.s. another sloppy comment is to state that Sunak won last week’s debate. Er, well maybe narrowly with the one pollster that Sky use (YouGov) but not with the other two he didn’t. So why not say so and report it correctly?
He believes that sitting a child in a little desk to chalk and talk at them about grammar and maths = good education.
It’s another good example of a bright person being a complete clown when it comes to common sense and awareness of other people’s multiple learning styles. What works for one brain in a vat, doesn’t work for other more normal human beings. So you need to be adaptive and creative. Two words that don’t come comfortably to heavily ideological career politicians.
We’re back to the point about too many MPs not having a clue about everyday life and work. It would be great, for example, to see some teachers and deputy / head teachers make it into Parliament after a career in the classroom.
You know, people who have an actual clue what they’re on about.
p.s. reminds me of the amusing remark that someone from a classroom visiting the DfES noted: the one sound you will never hear inside the Department of Education is that of a child.
One of the reasons Labour are, or may, poll sub 40 (I think it will be 37-39.5%) is because there’s a much more savvy anti-tory vote now. I’m a case in point but just one of millions. I want to vote Labour, naturally, but I’m voting LibDem to unseat the tory MP.
So make up whatever discourse you want on the night if that makes you happy but it won’t be objective truth.
Be glad for small mercies, I say, on this bright sunny morning.
Does this mean that politicians getting into trouble for liking troublesome posts is now in the past?
(I think private likes are a bad thing for a number of reasons.)
What bothers me even more are the algorithms. How they actively and relentlessly reinforce the content you engage with. It’s not healthy.
Who ran a quite seedy garage
He sold many used cars*
And hung round in bars
But the whole thing was a fucking mirage.
*That's a reference to one of his speeches. Will check back later to see if anyone got it.
Starmer by positioning Labour within a fag paper of the Tories, which is usually the successful strategy has left himself vulnerable to the charge of ‘they’re all the same’. That Sunak is collapsing the Tories is causing a backdraft that dragging those closeby with him. It’s a bit like that scene from Titanic, when the sinking ship sucked others below the water.
Whilst ultimately the grown up sensible change offered by Starmer will ultimately prevail, right now the popular outrage at Sunak is giving momentum to more radical change platforms right now. It’s like the Clegggasm.
Thankfully post Brexit German politiicans don't get a say in our politics, so it's moot.
His is one of the most thoughtful books on the subject I ever came across, and as far as I am aware the thesis has never been discredited.
Those people represent the elite.
That moment demonstrated how tricky events like last night are. Sky have been banging on about Grimsby all year, but, the participants obviously have to talk beyond just Grimsby. It needed Sunak to be a little cleverer and say that the policy helps people elsewhere where house prices are higher (though, probably not in London!).
So anyone in the media is OK then?
@SunPolitics
‘Handing Labour a landslide win would be like Blair on steroids,' @miriam_cates tells @MrHarryCole.
Our TV and history channels have a Nazi obsession, but are very light on other totalitarian regimes, some of which survive to the present day.
https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1800991167061836080
The implications of this are even bigger than you think.
Starmer says he knew “for certain” that Labour would lose in 2019.
So why, when Labour led in the polls, did he help to engineer a position of a ‘people’s vote’ if he knew they’d lose anyway?
It's fairly appalling that you think it would have been a good idea for the Tories to regulate a right wing news outlet out of existence (keeping all the left wing consensus ones of course) because of a perceived electoral advantage in doing so. It shows a unthinking disregard for free speech.
Apart from that, great post.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/12/ba-passengers-enjoy-nine-hour-flight-to-nowhere-after-minor/
Plane has a minor warning light come on for an engine, so they turned around and came back to base rather than landing in the middle of nowhere in Northern Canada.
XTwitter merely reinforces your worst tendencies. The trick is to control them yourself.
And yes, GB News is cancer. I’d like to see it subject to the same rules as all other broadcasters.