Still trying to work out why Farage decided to possibly knock 2-3% off Reform's vote share with his Putin comments. Maybe he thought it would solidify the party's support with the remainder.
He basically made the comments previously so had the choice of Mea Culpa (which would have finished him) or doubling down when confronted on it by Toenails on the BBC interview.
The fact that he is setting out to keep the story running himself (bigly) rather than attempting to "move on", suggests he thinks that, far from damaging him, it is another issue where the Liblabcon metropolitan elite speak as one and demonise anyone who dissents and he is gaining a goodly number of extra votes over this.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Ben Gartside @BenGartside · 16h Scoop: HS2 cancellation will mean fares increase between London and the north to reduce travellers amid capacity problems.
There will be 8% fewer seats on future trains after the high-speed line was scrapped, and prices are set to go up to reduce demand
Scrapping the bits of HS2 between Lichfield and Crewe and between Birmingham Internstional and Trent Junction was madness.
The cheapest, least controversial bits to build and huge capacity providers (by bypassing the two track bottleneck between Colwich and Stafford and bypassing the southern end of the Midland Main Line which is at capacity.
So now six tracks will converge just south of Colwich (four trent valley and two HS2) and turn into two tracks to Stafford and a branch to Stoke (with a flat, non grade separated junction at Colwich too).
Where are we with this?
Can HS2 be recovered? Or have Rishi and the Sunksters irredeemably wrecked it?
Land not sold off yet as far as I know. Not sure if anything has yet been done irreversibly at Euston to limit capacity there so preventing extra capacity even if Crewe /Trent was built.
Bury St Edmunds is very very close according to all the MRPs.
As it should be given we are heading for a 1997 landslide defeat for the Tories at best and in 1997 the Tory majority in Bury St Edmunds was just 368.
I think Tanner will hold on though, he has some connections to the area at least unlike Holden in Basildon and Billericay who I think will lose, his family are Suffolk farmers. So while Labour probably edge it in the city itself Tanner should win enough of the rural part of the constituency to win it overall
Bury isn't a city, its a town, a quite small one
It should be, one of only 3 towns in the UK with a cathedral that does not have city status and it has an old Abbey as well.
Though you are right, apologies
It's always mooted as a contender when new city opps appear. It's a very pleasant little town though
Retirement home of Lord Tebbit too (who may vote Reform I expect)
NEW: Nigel Farage counters Boris Johnson's criticism of his Putin Ukraine comments by unveiling a huge i front page suggesting Boris made a similar argument back in 2016.
Farage: "Perhaps it’s Boris Johnson who is morally repugnant, not me"
NEW: Nigel Farage counters Boris Johnson's criticism of his Putin Ukraine comments by unveiling a huge i front page suggesting Boris made a similar argument back in 2016.
Farage: "Perhaps it’s Boris Johnson who is morally repugnant, not me"
I guess it means that today’s FocalData poll is quite down on the Tories, then?
Also that 20.5% for Reform…I wonder if Reform might enjoy a surge in the polls for the next couple of days, because their fieldwork will come before Farage’s Putin comments? Some trading opportunities potentially.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
There is so much more to life than politics and Starmer being PM on the 5th July that my wife and I have decided to enjoy our Great Little Trains of Wales by travelling : -
Llanberis to Snowdon summit next week
Llanberis to Snowdon with our daughter 10 days later
Caernarfon to Porthmadog mid July on their gold observation carriage return journey with cream tea at our table on the return from Porthmadog
We are unable, or maybe not willing to venture far from home following my health issues but it is a long time since we travelled to Snowdon summit and we very much support our world class tourist attractions
BigG, if you get the chance to dine at the Portmerian Hotel, would heartily recommend it. Was there a few weeks back and it was most pleasant.
Still trying to work out why Farage decided to possibly knock 2-3% off Reform's vote share with his Putin comments. Maybe he thought it would solidify the party's support with the remainder.
He basically made the comments previously so had the choice of Mea Culpa (which would have finished him) or doubling down when confronted on it by Toenails on the BBC interview.
The fact that he is setting out to keep the story running himself (bigly) rather than attempting to "move on", suggests he thinks that, far from damaging him, it is another issue where the Liblabcon metropolitan elite speak as one and demonise anyone who dissents and he is gaining a goodly number of extra votes over this.
Time will tell
In which case, "high on his on supply" springs to mind. Not for sure, but as a reasonable possibility.
Still trying to work out why Farage decided to possibly knock 2-3% off Reform's vote share with his Putin comments. Maybe he thought it would solidify the party's support with the remainder.
He basically made the comments previously so had the choice of Mea Culpa (which would have finished him) or doubling down when confronted on it by Toenails on the BBC interview.
The fact that he is setting out to keep the story running himself (bigly) rather than attempting to "move on", suggests he thinks that, far from damaging him, it is another issue where the Liblabcon metropolitan elite speak as one and demonise anyone who dissents and he is gaining a goodly number of extra votes over this.
Time will tell
Is he being financed by Trumpists on the condition he stays on message?
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
Unicorns.
You've dumped your ex in a very acrimonious way, with lots of bad stuff said by both parties. Your life has gone to shit, you are poorer, depressed etc.
Your ex is angry, but she has moved on.
And now, you ring her up and say "hey babes, look, lets just forget I ever dumper you, can we go back to how it was?"
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
Yes, I think ctrl-z, or maybe ctrl-z-minus-the-rebate, is kind of an easier schelling point for everyone to agree on than anything else. It's not at all obvious to me that the rest of the Eurozone want Britain to join it, they've got enough problems as it is. And once you've got one opt-out, you have interminable arguing about what other ones you should have.
The problem with this and any other form of rejoin is that it all depends on the vagaries of which other member state has which government and what their various domestic political issues are. I think the easiest way to do it might be to do it quick by pulling it from the other end, ie the Dutch or the Polish or somebody have the presidency and they say, "let's make an offer to the British" and the other heads of state agree. Then the British PM gets to sell it as "we can get this offer if we take it right now, who knows if we'll still be able to get something like this in the future". But it's just unlikely that all the stars will happen to align and all the member states will be up for it at any given moment.
SNP - Independence is Page 1. Not people, not their needs, its all about defending the SNP's reason to exist Scottish Tories - Pledge 1 is "Beat the SNP". Not fix the economy they broke, just beat the other lot Scottish Liberal Democrats - we launch into our Fair Deal. Pledges to fix the economy and public services, for a clean environment and restored trade links with the EU, and putting trust back into politics
Ben Gartside @BenGartside · 16h Scoop: HS2 cancellation will mean fares increase between London and the north to reduce travellers amid capacity problems.
There will be 8% fewer seats on future trains after the high-speed line was scrapped, and prices are set to go up to reduce demand
Scrapping the bits of HS2 between Lichfield and Crewe and between Birmingham Internstional and Trent Junction was madness.
The cheapest, least controversial bits to build and huge capacity providers (by bypassing the two track bottleneck between Colwich and Stafford and bypassing the southern end of the Midland Main Line which is at capacity.
So now six tracks will converge just south of Colwich (four trent valley and two HS2) and turn into two tracks to Stafford and a branch to Stoke (with a flat, non grade separated junction at Colwich too).
Where are we with this?
Can HS2 be recovered? Or have Rishi and the Sunksters irredeemably wrecked it?
The Treasury doesn't believe in investment in the North so it would take a battle and a half for Starmer to reverse that decision, and I can't see him wanting that battle.
Bury St Edmunds is very very close according to all the MRPs.
As it should be given we are heading for a 1997 landslide defeat for the Tories at best and in 1997 the Tory majority in Bury St Edmunds was just 368.
I think Tanner will hold on though, he has some connections to the area at least unlike Holden in Basildon and Billericay who I think will lose, his family are Suffolk farmers. So while Labour probably edge it in the city itself Tanner should win enough of the rural part of the constituency to win it overall
Bury isn't a city, its a town, a quite small one
It should be, one of only 3 towns in the UK with a cathedral that does not have city status and it has an old Abbey as well.
Though you are right, apologies
It's always mooted as a contender when new city opps appear. It's a very pleasant little town though
Guildford, Rochester, Southwell, Southwark are not cities.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
We would go in as a sovereign nation and could leave whenever we wanted.
Do you lot really not understand how sovereignty works.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants (and the Irish)
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
Have you got a source for that, or just a vibe that that is what they would do?
After all, if push came to shove, a Farage government could do the diplomatic equivalent of pulling its trousers down and mooning at the Commission until they expelled us.
In practice, the things that would lock the UK in are a) the ghastliness of the 2016 experience and b) the loss of the postwar generation who are the only ones who were ever keen on Brexit in the first place.
There is so much more to life than politics and Starmer being PM on the 5th July that my wife and I have decided to enjoy our Great Little Trains of Wales by travelling : -
Llanberis to Snowdon summit next week
Llanberis to Snowdon with our daughter 10 days later
Caernarfon to Porthmadog mid July on their gold observation carriage return journey with cream tea at our table on the return from Porthmadog
We are unable, or maybe not willing to venture far from home following my health issues but it is a long time since we travelled to Snowdon summit and we very much support our world class tourist attractions
BigG, if you get the chance to dine at the Portmerian Hotel, would heartily recommend it. Was there a few weeks back and it was most pleasant.
Thank you and we nearly went there with our eldest and his wife when they came in from Vancouver for our Diamond wedding but the schedule didnt allow
It has an excellent reputation but on our rail journey we only have an hour and a half in Porthmadog before the return
If anyone is interested I attach the link to the Welsh Highlands Railway website though they do not go to Snowdon's summit
Admittedly I am slightly bored on a train down to the South-west and there’s nothing to moan about. It’s on time and air-conditioned. Most annoying as there’s nothing a Brit likes more than a damn good whinge.
You could "do a Jezza" and sit on the floor in the vestibule.
SNP - Independence is Page 1. Not people, not their needs, its all about defending the SNP's reason to exist Scottish Tories - Pledge 1 is "Beat the SNP". Not fix the economy they broke, just beat the other lot Scottish Liberal Democrats - we launch into our Fair Deal. Pledges to fix the economy and public services, for a clean environment and restored trade links with the EU, and putting trust back into politics
Are you suggesting that people in Scotland should vote LD? 😈
The cost differential for HVDC between overhead and underground is considerably less, at around 3x, I think. But that's really only relevant for long distance very high power line (say if we were to build GW connections between Scotland and England so the former can sell power to the latter, as renewables continue to grow).
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it. Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
Ben Gartside @BenGartside · 16h Scoop: HS2 cancellation will mean fares increase between London and the north to reduce travellers amid capacity problems.
There will be 8% fewer seats on future trains after the high-speed line was scrapped, and prices are set to go up to reduce demand
Scrapping the bits of HS2 between Lichfield and Crewe and between Birmingham Internstional and Trent Junction was madness.
The cheapest, least controversial bits to build and huge capacity providers (by bypassing the two track bottleneck between Colwich and Stafford and bypassing the southern end of the Midland Main Line which is at capacity.
So now six tracks will converge just south of Colwich (four trent valley and two HS2) and turn into two tracks to Stafford and a branch to Stoke (with a flat, non grade separated junction at Colwich too).
Where are we with this?
Can HS2 be recovered? Or have Rishi and the Sunksters irredeemably wrecked it?
The Treasury doesn't believe in investment in the North so it would take a battle and a half for Starmer to reverse that decision, and I can't see him wanting that battle.
Obviously the decision to cancel HS2 was bad news for HS2. But there's nothing that's actually happened yet which has prevented it returning. No lands been sold off or built over yet. However, the alacrity with which Labour leapt on 'wouldn't bring it back' as a position suggests to me they're not keen to try.
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
Unicorns.
You've dumped your ex in a very acrimonious way, with lots of bad stuff said by both parties. Your life has gone to shit, you are poorer, depressed etc.
Your ex is angry, but she has moved on.
And now, you ring her up and say "hey babes, look, lets just forget I ever dumper you, can we go back to how it was?"
How is that going to go?
Very poor analogy, though, since neither dumber or dumpee are the same entities as they were back in 2016.
Countries and multinational associations are not particularly comparable to individuals. You're going down Leon's ridiculous 'Brexit is like having a baby' rabbit hole.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
I appreciate the last few weeks have been stressful for you but you do appreciate that it is both legally and practically impossible for the EU to keep us in. You would need to re-write article 50 to prevent a state leaving which would not get past all 27 member states. And what, exactly, would the EU do if we declared UDI? Invade? With what?
But thank you for adding to the vast range of S&M themed phrases that you Righties use to describe membership of a glorified club joining the likes of "vassalage", "subjugation" and now "locked in good and tight". Its a kink that is almost universal in modern Tory supporters. You must keep Torture Garden in business.
The biggest problem will be getting back in, not getting back out again.
Ben Gartside @BenGartside · 16h Scoop: HS2 cancellation will mean fares increase between London and the north to reduce travellers amid capacity problems.
There will be 8% fewer seats on future trains after the high-speed line was scrapped, and prices are set to go up to reduce demand
Scrapping the bits of HS2 between Lichfield and Crewe and between Birmingham Internstional and Trent Junction was madness.
The cheapest, least controversial bits to build and huge capacity providers (by bypassing the two track bottleneck between Colwich and Stafford and bypassing the southern end of the Midland Main Line which is at capacity.
So now six tracks will converge just south of Colwich (four trent valley and two HS2) and turn into two tracks to Stafford and a branch to Stoke (with a flat, non grade separated junction at Colwich too).
Where are we with this?
Can HS2 be recovered? Or have Rishi and the Sunksters irredeemably wrecked it?
Nothing is irretrievable, assuming you have enough money.
SNP - Independence is Page 1. Not people, not their needs, its all about defending the SNP's reason to exist Scottish Tories - Pledge 1 is "Beat the SNP". Not fix the economy they broke, just beat the other lot Scottish Liberal Democrats - we launch into our Fair Deal. Pledges to fix the economy and public services, for a clean environment and restored trade links with the EU, and putting trust back into politics
Are you suggesting that people in Scotland should vote LD? 😈
Keir Starmer rejects calls to ban politicians from betting.
“I'm not sure we need to change the rules, there's a problem with the politicians. The moment the election was called they didn't say give me a microphone and let me make my case, they said let me head down to bookies”.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
You have no idea what a future EU might or might not agree to. Or indeed a future UK.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
Have you got a source for that, or just a vibe that that is what they would do?
After all, if push came to shove, a Farage government could do the diplomatic equivalent of pulling its trousers down and mooning at the Commission until they expelled us.
In practice, the things that would lock the UK in are a) the ghastliness of the 2016 experience and b) the loss of the postwar generation who are the only ones who were ever keen on Brexit in the first place.
If it were only the postwar generation who were keen it would never have passed. There arent enough of them.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants (and the Irish)
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If someone claims that black is white, then, yes, they are an idiot, or they are trying to deceive idiots, and one shouldn't be afraid to call them out.
With regard to climate change, you can reasonably argue it's not worth the cost of dealing with it, or that maybe it won't be so bad, or that we are not obliged to bail out our descendants. Hitchens, however, is disputing the basic science from a point of apparently complete ignorance. He has no idea what he is talking about, and only a fool would give him any credence.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
You have no idea what a future EU might or might not agree to. Or indeed a future UK.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it.Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
So you're saying an act of magical weirdness would appear weirdly like magic ? I'm astounded at the intellectual daring.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
Have you got a source for that, or just a vibe that that is what they would do?
After all, if push came to shove, a Farage government could do the diplomatic equivalent of pulling its trousers down and mooning at the Commission until they expelled us.
In practice, the things that would lock the UK in are a) the ghastliness of the 2016 experience and b) the loss of the postwar generation who are the only ones who were ever keen on Brexit in the first place.
As someone who was 7/10 about the EU (I was more convinced by the idea that allowing a Tory led Brexit would be a pathway to increased xenophobia and a general shift to the right in British politics, but that the economic issues were potentially overblown and could still be managed with half decent investment and government intervention) - I personally don't want to go back into the EU as it is now.
With Meloni being welcomed with open arms and Macron doing a staring contest with Le Pen, not to mention Orban and the recent rightward shift of countries like Poland, I could easily see the EU becoming a method of chaining neoliberal and far right governments together, on a continuing rightward shift and doing exactly what I feared a Brexiting UK would do anyway.
The last data ended on 21st June and it’s now 3 days later. Scandal.
Anyone know when we can expect one?
All levity aside, if the tories are going to do any narrowing I’d expect two moments for it to happen. One is right now, 10 days out. The other is in the final 48-hours.
Where's the previous evidence for these two periods when the Tories might expect to narrow their shortfall in the polls?
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants (and the Irish)
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If someone claims that black is white, then, yes, they are an idiot, or they are trying to deceive idiots, and one shouldn't be afraid to call them out.
With regard to climate change, you can reasonably argue it's not worth the cost of dealing with it, or that maybe it won't be so bad, or that we are not obliged to bail out our descendants. Hitchens, however, is disputing the basic science from a point of apparently complete ignorance. He has no idea what he is talking about, and only a fool would give him any credence.
Remember that MrEd/TheKitchenCabinet/MisterBedfrdshire is himself a Trumpian shill. So view his posts through that prism…
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
You have no idea what a future EU might or might not agree to. Or indeed a future UK.
The cost differential for HVDC between overhead and underground is considerably less, at around 3x, I think. But that's really only relevant for long distance very high power line (say if we were to build GW connections between Scotland and England so the former can sell power to the latter, as renewables continue to grow).
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
Thanks for the above tips from before particularly Sutton and Cheam at those odds which I thought was great!
Tbh, when measuring those swings - surely you have to take into account that London was so overwhelmingly Labour to begin with?
+6 Labour, -10 Tory alone doesn’t look great vs the rest of the country sure but how much higher than 55% can Labour really go?
I do wonder also - whether the relative weakness of the LDs in a lot of London, where Labour are overwhelming favourites, bolsters the Tory figure of 22%. Compared to some seats in the rest of England where the LDs are a bigger fighting force? To be fair 22% Tory is potentially higher than it could have been yes.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
What you scapegoat as the neoliberals have the only viable, right solution then.
It is the consumption of CO2-based goods that is the issue. Nobody produces it in a vacuum.
We need to change our technologies to being clean technologies that don't emit CO2. That is the only serious, credible way to get to net zero.
If we have net zero clean production, then your left "solutions" of cutting consumption or cutting production doesn't affect the issue at all. It doesn't matter whether we have more or less production or consumption if its zero-emissions, since anything times zero is still zero.
If we don't have net zero clean production, then your left "solutions" also fail, as marginally reducing "excess consumption" won't make the slightest damned bit of difference and won't get us to zero emissions either.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
I appreciate the last few weeks have been stressful for you but you do appreciate that it is both legally and practically impossible for the EU to keep us in. You would need to re-write article 50 to prevent a state leaving which would not get past all 27 member states. And what, exactly, would the EU do if we declared UDI? Invade? With what?
But thank you for adding to the vast range of S&M themed phrases that you Righties use to describe membership of a glorified club joining the likes of "vassalage", "subjugation" and now "locked in good and tight". Its a kink that is almost universal in modern Tory supporters. You must keep Torture Garden in business.
The biggest problem will be getting back in, not getting back out again.
TBF, it's considerably less ridiculous, and far less offensive, than Farage's 'EUSSR' schtick.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
You think the EU will allow us to use Article 50 to leave again? Dream on... If we are going back, we're going back for good.
Locked in good and tight...
I appreciate the last few weeks have been stressful for you but you do appreciate that it is both legally and practically impossible for the EU to keep us in. You would need to re-write article 50 to prevent a state leaving which would not get past all 27 member states. And what, exactly, would the EU do if we declared UDI? Invade? With what?
But thank you for adding to the vast range of S&M themed phrases that you Righties use to describe membership of a glorified club joining the likes of "vassalage", "subjugation" and now "locked in good and tight". Its a kink that is almost universal in modern Tory supporters. You must keep Torture Garden in business.
The biggest problem will be getting back in, not getting back out again.
For us to rejoin, that will have to get past all 27 member states.
"The accession treaty must be approved by the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament before being signed and ratified by all EU Member States and the candidate country."
So saying Article 50 is a one-time event (which the UK has already used) is hardly a biggie for them to insist on.
"And what, exactly, would the EU do if we declared UDI? Invade? With what?"
“The next Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland owns set after set of only two outfits; he says that he doesn’t dream, he doesn’t have a favourite novel or poem; he speaks about himself in the third person.”
The first of those is odd but something I can happily get on board with and indeed have moved towards as I've got older - when I find a clothing item I like, I tend to buy several of them. The problem is, of course, when clothing manufacturers - who are addicted to novelty - change their product.
I don't know that I have a favourite novel or poem. I don't think that's odd. I mean, if I was to take a day or so to try to list all the books or poems I'd ever read, I could probably rank them, but I don't have one to hand. And fiction isn't a big part of my life.
Not dreaming is odd indeed. Does anyone else here not dream? That strikes me as being so singular as worthy of study by a psychologist. I mean, I don't think I particularly benefit from my dreams, but I have them - it's part of the human condition. Part of the mammalian condition, I'd suggest.
Talking about yourself in the third person is also very odd, but affected odd. You can only really carry that off if you're a fictional sitcom character like the Fonz, or Terry out of Brooklyn 911.And SKS is neither of those.
Yes I agree. First two are just quirks (I’m similar on clothes I like now)
But the last two are decidedly strange, and a little unsettling
Very odd. And more than enough to prevent you voting Labour, I'd have thought.
Unluckily for you I was tending towards Reform but Farage’s Putin remarks have given me serious pause - because they remind me of his possible links with Putin, not because of his critique of EU/NATO expansion (which I think is largely correct)
Now I’m back with starmer. I can’t stand Labour but they are going to win and it will probably be a woke disaster…. however if they are to change the country for the better (not entirely impossible) they need a big majority. And I’m the hopeful type. And Labour deserve a go and also I seriously want the Tories to die
The worst outcome for the country would be Labour with NOM and five more years of shite rubbish when nothing gets done
And if Labour get a 200 seat majority and still fuck it up then we’ll have tried their awful socialism and seen it fail and then a proper right wing party can finally take the reins
It’s not an optimistic prospect but then I’m sitting in the hometown of Jean Marie le pen thinking why is France so much nicer than Britain. I think I’d rather live in the average French roundabout than in the average British new build home. The roundabouts are prettier and better designed
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
Which are the top 3 large left leaning countries whose successful example we can use to persuade the unenlightened about this?
If this is just an untested theory, that's one thing. If this is worked out politically fruitful truth, that is world changing stuff.
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
I'd be surprised if the LDs win Sutton & Cheam. I don't believe it's a target and on the London poll numbers ot looks an easy CON hold.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it. Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
Oh I don't know. Having read a few times travel science fiction stories, I think it's fascinating to consider what you could bring back with you - in a rucksack, say - that would do you the most benefit.
I think it's an interesting way to think about which technologies/knowledge are massively reliant on other technologies to be useful, and which are useful in their own right.
And this van lead you to delve into the history of technological development, to see which advanced were only possible once other advanced had been made, and so on, and so forth.
I think that's a very imaginative and interesting mental endeavour. It's often the restrictions that you place on a thought-experiment that make it interesting in more than a superficial way.
Bury St Edmunds is very very close according to all the MRPs.
As it should be given we are heading for a 1997 landslide defeat for the Tories at best and in 1997 the Tory majority in Bury St Edmunds was just 368.
I think Tanner will hold on though, he has some connections to the area at least unlike Holden in Basildon and Billericay who I think will lose, his family are Suffolk farmers. So while Labour probably edge it in the city itself Tanner should win enough of the rural part of the constituency to win it overall
Bury isn't a city, its a town, a quite small one
It should be, one of only 3 towns in the UK with a cathedral that does not have city status and it has an old Abbey as well.
Though you are right, apologies
It's always mooted as a contender when new city opps appear. It's a very pleasant little town though
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it. Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
Alternatively, you didn't really think it through, as per.
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge... "
I'll spell out what's obvious to everyone except you:
To be able to talk to any other human in the world they would also have to have access to a phone.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants (and the Irish)
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If someone claims that black is white, then, yes, they are an idiot, or they are trying to deceive idiots, and one shouldn't be afraid to call them out.
With regard to climate change, you can reasonably argue it's not worth the cost of dealing with it, or that maybe it won't be so bad, or that we are not obliged to bail out our descendants. Hitchens, however, is disputing the basic science from a point of apparently complete ignorance. He has no idea what he is talking about, and only a fool would give him any credence.
Remember that MrEd/TheKitchenCabinet/MisterBedfrdshire is himself a Trumpian shill. So view his posts through that prism…
IIUC TheKitchenCabinet and MisterBedfordshire are not the same person
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
Unicorns.
You've dumped your ex in a very acrimonious way, with lots of bad stuff said by both parties. Your life has gone to shit, you are poorer, depressed etc.
Your ex is angry, but she has moved on.
And now, you ring her up and say "hey babes, look, lets just forget I ever dumper you, can we go back to how it was?"
How is that going to go?
Analogies can only go so far. The people in charge in the UK, the EU and the EU member countries will mostly be different. The rancour is less personal. Ultimately, it will look great for the EU for the UK to rejoin. There's no need to punish the UK: the EU can treat us like the prodigal son.
Keir Starmer rejects calls to ban politicians from betting.
“I'm not sure we need to change the rules, there's a problem with the politicians. The moment the election was called they didn't say give me a microphone and let me make my case, they said let me head down to bookies”.
I get real Sir Walter Raleigh in Blackadder 2 vibes from Starmer. At present he’s the toast of court, the fresh hero, the future and can say wanky stuff with a condescending snip at the old guard that makes everyone laugh even though it’s not half as funny or witty as he thinks.
Unfortunately for him things will change and his superior priggishness will get boring and stale.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
Ben Gartside @BenGartside · 16h Scoop: HS2 cancellation will mean fares increase between London and the north to reduce travellers amid capacity problems.
There will be 8% fewer seats on future trains after the high-speed line was scrapped, and prices are set to go up to reduce demand
Scrapping the bits of HS2 between Lichfield and Crewe and between Birmingham Internstional and Trent Junction was madness.
The cheapest, least controversial bits to build and huge capacity providers (by bypassing the two track bottleneck between Colwich and Stafford and bypassing the southern end of the Midland Main Line which is at capacity.
So now six tracks will converge just south of Colwich (four trent valley and two HS2) and turn into two tracks to Stafford and a branch to Stoke (with a flat, non grade separated junction at Colwich too).
Where are we with this?
Can HS2 be recovered? Or have Rishi and the Sunksters irredeemably wrecked it?
The Treasury doesn't believe in investment in the North so it would take a battle and a half for Starmer to reverse that decision, and I can't see him wanting that battle.
Obviously the decision to cancel HS2 was bad news for HS2. But there's nothing that's actually happened yet which has prevented it returning. No lands been sold off or built over yet. However, the alacrity with which Labour leapt on 'wouldn't bring it back' as a position suggests to me they're not keen to try.
NEW: Nigel Farage counters Boris Johnson's criticism of his Putin Ukraine comments by unveiling a huge i front page suggesting Boris made a similar argument back in 2016.
Farage: "Perhaps it’s Boris Johnson who is morally repugnant, not me"
The supposed Daily Mail hit story quoting Kremlin Sources dosent seem to have materialised in todays edition.
Farage is simply having a snit because for the first time in forever a major right wing news outlet has criticised him. He's not used to it.
My impression is that Farage is thin-skinned. Bit like Trump - obsesses over slights. He's even been threatening to deploy Carter Ruck, a pretty bad sign.
Nige vs Boris is an interesting development. I wonder if this will escalate and if BJ will enter the campaign in a more meaningful way. Be fun to see him in Clacton.
Putingate is certainly diminishing the chance of a Faragiste take-over of the Tories. For that we can be thankful.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it. Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
Oh I don't know. Having read a few times travel science fiction stories, I think it's fascinating to consider what you could bring back with you - in a rucksack, say - that would do you the most benefit.
I think it's an interesting way to think about which technologies/knowledge are massively reliant on other technologies to be useful, and which are useful in their own right.
And this can lead you to delve into the history of technological development, to see which advanced were only possible once other advanced had been made, and so on, and so forth.
I think that's a very imaginative and interesting mental endeavour. It's often the restrictions that you place on a thought-experiment that make it interesting in more than a superficial way.
The interesting stuff that's happening in tech now, though, is all about massive network effects of one kind or another. It would be impossible to imagine (eg) high end chip manufacturing without them.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
SNP - Independence is Page 1. Not people, not their needs, its all about defending the SNP's reason to exist Scottish Tories - Pledge 1 is "Beat the SNP". Not fix the economy they broke, just beat the other lot Scottish Liberal Democrats - we launch into our Fair Deal. Pledges to fix the economy and public services, for a clean environment and restored trade links with the EU, and putting trust back into politics
Are you suggesting that people in Scotland should vote LD? 😈
An independaent Scotland would have a much easier route to rejoin.
Believing that full independence is necessary to have the full range of powers to manage the economy is a startling new idea, though.
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
Reform 8% in London and 4% in Scotland they must be at 30% in some regions? And if so how can that be only 6 seats max? especially as the tories collapse
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
I'd be surprised if the LDs win Sutton & Cheam. I don't believe it's a target and on the London poll numbers ot looks an easy CON hold.
The London LibDem targets, as a million emails from the London party have told me, are Carshalton & Wallington and Wimbledon.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it.Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
So you're saying an act of magical weirdness would appear weirdly like magic ? I'm astounded at the intellectual daring.
Whip out a smartphone in 13th Century Pygshire and wave it around, you would likely or not be stoned to death on the spot* as an instrument of the Devil and all his works. Our forefathers weren't to get rationality for a few centuries yet.
*Unless said Smartphone also had a phaser/death ray attached ..but this sort of exercise in imagination has been explored in many Sci Fi plots
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
Reform 8% in London and 4% in Scotland they must be at 30% in some regions? And if so how can that be only 6 seats max? especially as the tories collapse
It's not - I've not included Old Bexley & Sidcup, Orpington and Hornchurch & Upminster which I think the Conservatives will also hold.
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
I'd be surprised if the LDs win Sutton & Cheam. I don't believe it's a target and on the London poll numbers ot looks an easy CON hold.
LD majority between 8.5 and 13.5% with Electoral Calculus, Yougov and New Statesman; 7% Tory hold with IPSOS.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it.Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
So you're saying an act of magical weirdness would appear weirdly like magic ? I'm astounded at the intellectual daring.
Whip out a smartphone in 13th Century Pygshire and wave it around, you would likely or not be stoned to death on the spot* as an instrument of the Devil and all his works. Our forefathers weren't to get rationality for a few centuries yet.
*Unless said Smartphone also had a phaser/death ray attached ..but this sort of exercise in imagination has been explored in many Sci Fi plots
Whip out a smartphone in the 13th Century and you'd be whipping out a brick incapable of doing anything or even turning on after a couple of hours.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
Unicorns.
You've dumped your ex in a very acrimonious way, with lots of bad stuff said by both parties. Your life has gone to shit, you are poorer, depressed etc.
Your ex is angry, but she has moved on.
And now, you ring her up and say "hey babes, look, lets just forget I ever dumper you, can we go back to how it was?"
How is that going to go?
Very poor analogy, though, since neither dumber or dumpee are the same entities as they were back in 2016.
Countries and multinational associations are not particularly comparable to individuals. You're going down Leon's ridiculous 'Brexit is like having a baby' rabbit hole.
And the original idea would be disastrous for the EU - If it was believed that someone who left could rejoin as before, the barriers to leaving would be negligible: "Oh lets give it a go and if we don't like it we'll just say it was all just a dream".
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
Which are the top 3 large left leaning countries whose successful example we can use to persuade the unenlightened about this?
If this is just an untested theory, that's one thing. If this is worked out politically fruitful truth, that is world changing stuff.
I can't answer your question, but I was interested in the related question of which are the largest left-leaning democracies in the world today. I put forth a possible answer of...
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
"Everyone can carry on doing whatever they like no matter how destructive because I believe in magic"
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it. Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
Oh I don't know. Having read a few times travel science fiction stories, I think it's fascinating to consider what you could bring back with you - in a rucksack, say - that would do you the most benefit.
I think it's an interesting way to think about which technologies/knowledge are massively reliant on other technologies to be useful, and which are useful in their own right.
And this can lead you to delve into the history of technological development, to see which advanced were only possible once other advanced had been made, and so on, and so forth.
I think that's a very imaginative and interesting mental endeavour. It's often the restrictions that you place on a thought-experiment that make it interesting in more than a superficial way.
The interesting stuff that's happening in tech now, though, is all about massive network effects of one kind or another. It would be impossible to imagine (eg) high end chip manufacturing without them.
Yes, and this is relevant to a couple of things in the here and now. The idea of creating a self-sufficient population of humans on Mars, and the resilience of our society to major shocks that might knock out key capabilities (such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan).
So if you are willing to consider an idea like taking a smartphone back to 1372 with a little bit more intellectual rigour than, "it would be like magic, innit?" then it can prompt you to think about the present day in new and interesting ways.
SNP - Independence is Page 1. Not people, not their needs, its all about defending the SNP's reason to exist Scottish Tories - Pledge 1 is "Beat the SNP". Not fix the economy they broke, just beat the other lot Scottish Liberal Democrats - we launch into our Fair Deal. Pledges to fix the economy and public services, for a clean environment and restored trade links with the EU, and putting trust back into politics
Are you suggesting that people in Scotland should vote LD? 😈
In at the very least one constituency, yes.
Where that pledge is in part irrelevant, however. Devolution, remember. Though some of it is highly valid.
Committed an assault and documented it? Not the brightest.
A right to roam in England will be difficult.
There is a lot more land next to urban sprawl and plenty of anti-social behaviour to go with it.
There is also a right of way network which doesn't really exist in Scotland and we already have access land in some suitable places.
Extend Access Land? - yes. A blanket right to roam? - a recipe for trouble.
Yep - I agree it's a can or worms, which I think is why New Labour only went so far.
AIUI the Scottish setup has been quite effective, so that is a good, but maybe partial due to population density etc, model.
The RoW network is very badly neglected, with some bizarre general practices such as newly created publicly funded multiuser paths not being dedicated as RoWs. The current Govt has been as chaotic about this, as they are about everything else - with for example Theresa Coffey being a patsy for the landowner lobby.
My preference is for the role of LHAs to be broadened to be Public Highway bodies, rather than "Roads" Bodies with nods to other things, and public highway policing to become a statutory responsibility of police forces.
Access land in England is a mess - there are hundreds of areas of access land everywhere which cannot be reached without trespassing to get there. There's a good video by Paul Whitewick on that issue here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0GiPtOHI7U
It all seems ripe for a tidy up, and it will be popular with pretty much all of Sir Keir Starmer's support base. I don't see a political downside for him.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it.Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
So you're saying an act of magical weirdness would appear weirdly like magic ? I'm astounded at the intellectual daring.
No. I specifically said it would appear MORE than magical. It would appear divine. A crystal Book of Hours bestowing omniscience
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
All this ignores the Evul Corporations who have collapsed the price of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and electric cars.
Bury St Edmunds is very very close according to all the MRPs.
As it should be given we are heading for a 1997 landslide defeat for the Tories at best and in 1997 the Tory majority in Bury St Edmunds was just 368.
I think Tanner will hold on though, he has some connections to the area at least unlike Holden in Basildon and Billericay who I think will lose, his family are Suffolk farmers. So while Labour probably edge it in the city itself Tanner should win enough of the rural part of the constituency to win it overall
Bury isn't a city, its a town, a quite small one
It should be, one of only 3 towns in the UK with a cathedral that does not have city status and it has an old Abbey as well.
Though you are right, apologies
It's always mooted as a contender when new city opps appear. It's a very pleasant little town though
Retirement home of Lord Tebbit too (who may vote Reform I expect)
I would hope not, young HY. Not if he is a member of the House of Lords.....
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it. Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
Alternatively, you didn't really think it through, as per.
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge... "
I'll spell out what's obvious to everyone except you:
To be able to talk to any other human in the world they would also have to have access to a phone.
Mr. Leon, while not quite mud huts, it was startling to learn (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England) that the cookery equipment/utensils of a peasant's house were often worth more than the house itself.
Comparing prices over that length of time is nigh on impossible because the price of labour was so low whereas the price of objects was so high.
And they had so few objects
You’d get wills mentioning someone’s “five spoons and a kettle”
Imagine showing them a smartphone. It would be something BEYOND magic
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge and can capture frozen images of everything you see and play you music of infinite variety and help you solve any problem. With this small metal box you become God”
Having a smartphone in 1372 would turn you into a god. Omniscient and omnipresent
Although, in many respects, most smartphones now are dumb terminals with a camera.
Everything is in data centres. Wikipedia, music streaming, communication reliant on the network.
If you had a smartphone in 1372, and solar panels to charge it, you'd be able to: take photos, record videos, record audio, have a torch, measure time reasonably accurately, perform numerical calculations, act as a spirit level, and, um, that would be pretty much it.
Yes I’m obviously presuming you have signal and power and the rest of it. Because it’s a thought experiment - taking a fucking smartphone back to the 1380s is already an act of magical weirdness so I’m going the whole hog
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
Alternatively, you didn't really think it through, as per.
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge... "
I'll spell out what's obvious to everyone except you:
To be able to talk to any other human in the world they would also have to have access to a phone.
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
Reform 8% in London and 4% in Scotland they must be at 30% in some regions? And if so how can that be only 6 seats max? especially as the tories collapse
Suppose you have votes split between four parties: 30-30-30-10. We'll call them red, blue, teal and yellow respectively.
The teal and yellow parties have 30% and 10% everywhere. The red and blue parties both have 40% in half the seats and 20% in the other half. Red and blue share all the seats, teal and yellow get nothing.
Reform can fail to win lots of seats simply by one, or another, of the other parties having more votes in each seat. They may not lose many deposits, but win very few seats.
Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23
Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.
Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.
Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.
Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.
There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.
You don't believe in net zero, do you?
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
"Everyone can carry on doing whatever they like no matter how destructive because I believe in magic"
Not magic - science and technology.
Of course, related to our parallel chat, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Simple question: Do you believe in net zero, yes or no?
I do, thanks to clean technologies. That is the only viable solution for the environment, your dogma is bad for the environment.
A lot of ppl think Rejoin is very difficult because the process officially entails adopting the Euro, Schengen, etc - things that even many Rejoiners don’t want.
But here’s the thing. If we asked the EU for a return to the 2015 status quo ante…the worst they could do is say no?
I understand that it wouldn’t be able to happen overnight. But if it would be a net GDP benefit to both the UK and the EU… could they not acquiesce? Or agree to something close to it, eventually?
Some would say “The EU would only allow the UK back in under the same terms as everyone else” because if it let us pick and choose, then other countries would demand the same.
But isn’t this partially negated by the ability of the EU to say to any country who wants to leave in the future, “Well look, the UK tried to leave, they regretted it, so much that we both went back to how things were before.”
I’ve long been a believer that 90% of Brexiteers cared predominantly about immigration - yes, austerity/a desire for levelling up etc might have motivated voters but I imagine many of those would probably prefer to be back in the EU now.
I don’t know whether Labour’s plan for closer integration basically gets us eventually to some kind of ‘rejoining in all but name’ which might satisfy people enough on both sides.
I think if the Lib Dems are the official opposition it could certainly accelerate calls to outright rejoin. Electorally it seems lucrative way to try and eat into the Labour vote and differentiate them from Starmer’s Govt.
Unicorns.
You've dumped your ex in a very acrimonious way, with lots of bad stuff said by both parties. Your life has gone to shit, you are poorer, depressed etc.
Your ex is angry, but she has moved on.
And now, you ring her up and say "hey babes, look, lets just forget I ever dumper you, can we go back to how it was?"
How is that going to go?
Very poor analogy, though, since neither dumber or dumpee are the same entities as they were back in 2016.
Countries and multinational associations are not particularly comparable to individuals. You're going down Leon's ridiculous 'Brexit is like having a baby' rabbit hole.
And the original idea would be disastrous for the EU - If it was believed that someone who left could rejoin as before, the barriers to leaving would be negligible: "Oh lets give it a go and if we don't like it we'll just say it was all just a dream".
After observing our experience of the last decade, who on earth would believe that ?
The barriers to leaving or (re)joining are far more matters of practicality than pure legislation. Note I've said anything myself about our rejoining during today's discussion. I'm just noting merely that the prospect being raised seems to prompt a rash of irrationally definitive arguments in response.
Trinite sur Mer is extremely pleasant. I’m not sure what radicalised Jean Marie le pen. Maybe the sardine boutique was bought by a Jewish couple? The artisanal biscotterie and cider brasserie played reggae on a Sunday?
June 17-20th, sample of 520 current or recent GB News viewers
Yes, but with the caveat of it being a poll of a subset of the population. So, similar to polls of Muslim voters, or private renters, etc, that have also been done
The significance that you attach to it depends strongly on your prior assumptions about what you think the voting intention of GB News viewers should be
Britain is not even joining the Single Market until some kind of arrangement on freedom of movement can be made.
Which may be never.
Having said that, clearly immigration is rising up the political agenda across Europe and a near-future EU may be amenable to qualifying freedom of movement somehow.
I guess it means that today’s FocalData poll is quite down on the Tories, then?
Also that 20.5% for Reform…I wonder if Reform might enjoy a surge in the polls for the next couple of days, because their fieldwork will come before Farage’s Putin comments? Some trading opportunities potentially.
When is FocalData coming out? Imagine it shows Reform rising.....
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
Reform 8% in London and 4% in Scotland they must be at 30% in some regions? And if so how can that be only 6 seats max? especially as the tories collapse
Suppose you have votes split between four parties: 30-30-30-10. We'll call them red, blue, teal and yellow respectively.
The teal and yellow parties have 30% and 10% everywhere. The red and blue parties both have 40% in half the seats and 20% in the other half. Red and blue share all the seats, teal and yellow get nothing.
Reform can fail to win lots of seats simply by one, or another, of the other parties having more votes in each seat. They may not lose many deposits, but win very few seats.
Are the MRPs taking into account that REFORM and the Brexit parties are basically the same parties?
Britain is not even joining the Single Market until some kind of arrangement on freedom of movement can be made.
Which may be never.
Having said that, clearly immigration is rising up the political agenda across Europe and a near-future EU may be amendable to qualifying freedom of movement somehow.
The biggest problem was our need rather than contribution based welfare system. Fix that and part of the pull that brings lower earning workers into the UK disappears.
As I pointed out before one of the biggest culprits in the Brexit story was Blair / Brown not fixing that issue back in 2002/5...
I guess it means that today’s FocalData poll is quite down on the Tories, then?
Also that 20.5% for Reform…I wonder if Reform might enjoy a surge in the polls for the next couple of days, because their fieldwork will come before Farage’s Putin comments? Some trading opportunities potentially.
When is FocalData coming out? Imagine it shows Reform rising.....
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5 Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8 Croydon East – CON 10/1 Croydon South – CON 2/1 Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10 Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
Reform 8% in London and 4% in Scotland they must be at 30% in some regions? And if so how can that be only 6 seats max? especially as the tories collapse
Suppose you have votes split between four parties: 30-30-30-10. We'll call them red, blue, teal and yellow respectively.
The teal and yellow parties have 30% and 10% everywhere. The red and blue parties both have 40% in half the seats and 20% in the other half. Red and blue share all the seats, teal and yellow get nothing.
Reform can fail to win lots of seats simply by one, or another, of the other parties having more votes in each seat. They may not lose many deposits, but win very few seats.
Are the MRPs taking into account that REFORM and the Brexit parties are basically the same parties?
It doesn't help given the number of constituencies where Brexit didn't stand back in 2019...
Comments
The fact that he is setting out to keep the story running himself (bigly) rather than attempting to "move on", suggests he thinks that, far from damaging him, it is another issue where the Liblabcon metropolitan elite speak as one and demonise anyone who dissents and he is gaining a goodly number of extra votes over this.
Time will tell
Locked in good and tight...
Farage moaning about the Daily Mail collaborating with the Kremlin
While wearing the same jacket he wore to Baron Lebedev of Siberia's garden party in 2016
https://x.com/RussellEngland/status/1804987256018722930
I guess it means that today’s FocalData poll is quite down on the Tories, then?
Also that 20.5% for Reform…I wonder if Reform might enjoy a surge in the polls for the next couple of days, because their fieldwork will come before Farage’s Putin comments? Some trading opportunities potentially.
https://youtu.be/IhI7WuPxt2g?feature=shared
It happens to the best of us.
You've dumped your ex in a very acrimonious way, with lots of bad stuff said by both parties. Your life has gone to shit, you are poorer, depressed etc.
Your ex is angry, but she has moved on.
And now, you ring her up and say "hey babes, look, lets just forget I ever dumper you, can we go back to how it was?"
How is that going to go?
The problem with this and any other form of rejoin is that it all depends on the vagaries of which other member state has which government and what their various domestic political issues are. I think the easiest way to do it might be to do it quick by pulling it from the other end, ie the Dutch or the Polish or somebody have the presidency and they say, "let's make an offer to the British" and the other heads of state agree. Then the British PM gets to sell it as "we can get this offer if we take it right now, who knows if we'll still be able to get something like this in the future". But it's just unlikely that all the stars will happen to align and all the member states will be up for it at any given moment.
Farmer in Devon deliberately sprays wild camper, camping on the margin of a field that had already been cut, with slurry.
He could just have asked him to move on, but planned and executed an assault, then had it reported in the Soaraway Sun.
What could possibly go wrong?
I'd say that it somewhat increases the likelihood of right to roam in England being addressed by the next Government.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28620921/farmer-shoots-poo-slurry-wild-camper-tent/
SNP - Independence is Page 1. Not people, not their needs, its all about defending the SNP's reason to exist
Scottish Tories - Pledge 1 is "Beat the SNP". Not fix the economy they broke, just beat the other lot
Scottish Liberal Democrats - we launch into our Fair Deal. Pledges to fix the economy and public services, for a clean environment and restored trade links with the EU, and putting trust back into politics
Do you lot really not understand how sovereignty works.
After all, if push came to shove, a Farage government could do the diplomatic equivalent of pulling its trousers down and mooning at the Commission until they expelled us.
In practice, the things that would lock the UK in are a) the ghastliness of the 2016 experience and b) the loss of the postwar generation who are the only ones who were ever keen on Brexit in the first place.
It has an excellent reputation but on our rail journey we only have an hour and a half in Porthmadog before the return
If anyone is interested I attach the link to the Welsh Highlands Railway website though they do not go to Snowdon's summit
https://www.festrail.co.uk/
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1805209143130681765
https://www.nationalgrid.com/sites/default/files/documents/39111-Undergrounding_high_voltage_electricity_transmission_lines_The_technical_issues_INT.pdf
The cost differential for HVDC between overhead and underground is considerably less, at around 3x, I think.
But that's really only relevant for long distance very high power line (say if we were to build GW connections between Scotland and England so the former can sell power to the latter, as renewables continue to grow).
If is sometimes obvious that PBers tend to the more statistical and unimaginative side of cerebration
However, the alacrity with which Labour leapt on 'wouldn't bring it back' as a position suggests to me they're not keen to try.
A right to roam in England will be difficult.
There is a lot more land next to urban sprawl and plenty of anti-social behaviour to go with it.
There is also a right of way network which doesn't really exist in Scotland and we already have access land in some suitable places.
Extend Access Land? - yes.
A blanket right to roam? - a recipe for trouble.
Not sure if this has been reported elsewhere - if so, apologies but we have a London GE poll:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-general-election-poll-labour-tories-reform-lib-dems-b1166266.html
Labour 55%, Conservative 22%, LD 10%, Reform 8%, Greens 5%.
Since 2019, that's Labour +6, Conservative -10, LD -5, Reform +6.5, Green +2
A swing of 8% from Conservative to Labour and 2.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so not the big moves we've seen in other parts of the country. We did see from the Holborn & St Pancras poll yesterday some Green strength and Labour weakness in Inner London and I expect we're seeing stronger Labour scores in Outer London.
Just to remind you, I have the following London bets:
Harrow East – CON 9/4
Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner – CON 4/5
Bromley & Biggin Hill – CON 11/8
Croydon East – CON 10/1
Croydon South – CON 2/1
Sutton & Cheam – LD 11/10
Romford – CON 6/4
Apart from Croydon East, which has gone - I'm concerned about Harrow East but I'm happy with the other five and while we can see the Conservatives being reduced from the 21 sats they won last time down to single figures, I don't see a wipeout on these numbers.
Countries and multinational associations are not particularly comparable to individuals. You're going down Leon's ridiculous 'Brexit is like having a baby' rabbit hole.
But thank you for adding to the vast range of S&M themed phrases that you Righties use to describe membership of a glorified club joining the likes of "vassalage", "subjugation" and now "locked in good and tight". Its a kink that is almost universal in modern Tory supporters. You must keep Torture Garden in business.
The biggest problem will be getting back in, not getting back out again.
Keir Starmer rejects calls to ban politicians from betting.
“I'm not sure we need to change the rules, there's a problem with the politicians. The moment the election was called they didn't say give me a microphone and let me make my case, they said let me head down to bookies”.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1805199979239100672
Or indeed a future UK.
With regard to climate change, you can reasonably argue it's not worth the cost of dealing with it, or that maybe it won't be so bad, or that we are not obliged to bail out our descendants. Hitchens, however, is disputing the basic science from a point of apparently complete ignorance. He has no idea what he is talking about, and only a fool would give him any credence.
I'm astounded at the intellectual daring.
There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.
We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.
With Meloni being welcomed with open arms and Macron doing a staring contest with Le Pen, not to mention Orban and the recent rightward shift of countries like Poland, I could easily see the EU becoming a method of chaining neoliberal and far right governments together, on a continuing rightward shift and doing exactly what I feared a Brexiting UK would do anyway.
Tbh, when measuring those swings - surely you have to take into account that London was so overwhelmingly Labour to begin with?
+6 Labour, -10 Tory alone doesn’t look great vs the rest of the country sure but how much higher than 55% can Labour really go?
I do wonder also - whether the relative weakness of the LDs in a lot of London, where Labour are overwhelming favourites, bolsters the Tory figure of 22%. Compared to some seats in the rest of England where the LDs are a bigger fighting force? To be fair 22% Tory is potentially higher than it could have been yes.
It is the consumption of CO2-based goods that is the issue. Nobody produces it in a vacuum.
We need to change our technologies to being clean technologies that don't emit CO2. That is the only serious, credible way to get to net zero.
If we have net zero clean production, then your left "solutions" of cutting consumption or cutting production doesn't affect the issue at all. It doesn't matter whether we have more or less production or consumption if its zero-emissions, since anything times zero is still zero.
If we don't have net zero clean production, then your left "solutions" also fail, as marginally reducing "excess consumption" won't make the slightest damned bit of difference and won't get us to zero emissions either.
"The accession treaty must be approved by the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament before being signed and ratified by all EU Member States and the candidate country."
So saying Article 50 is a one-time event (which the UK has already used) is hardly a biggie for them to insist on.
"And what, exactly, would the EU do if we declared UDI? Invade? With what?"
Were you advising Boris?
Now I’m back with starmer. I can’t stand Labour but they are going to win and it will probably be a woke disaster…. however if they are to change the country for the better (not entirely impossible) they need a big majority. And I’m the hopeful type. And Labour deserve a go and also I seriously want the Tories to die
The worst outcome for the country would be Labour with NOM and five more years of shite rubbish when nothing gets done
And if Labour get a 200 seat majority and still fuck it up then we’ll have tried their awful socialism and seen it fail and then a proper right wing party can finally take the reins
It’s not an optimistic prospect but then I’m sitting in the hometown of Jean Marie le pen thinking why is France so much nicer than Britain. I think I’d rather live in the average French roundabout than in the average British new build home. The roundabouts are prettier and better designed
If this is just an untested theory, that's one thing. If this is worked out politically fruitful truth, that is world changing stuff.
I think it's an interesting way to think about which technologies/knowledge are massively reliant on other technologies to be useful, and which are useful in their own right.
And this van lead you to delve into the history of technological development, to see which advanced were only possible once other advanced had been made, and so on, and so forth.
I think that's a very imaginative and interesting mental endeavour. It's often the restrictions that you place on a thought-experiment that make it interesting in more than a superficial way.
“So yes through this box you can look at any other human in the world and talk to them. Also it contains all of human knowledge... "
I'll spell out what's obvious to everyone except you:
To be able to talk to any other human in the world they would also have to have access to a phone.
Hope that helps.
https://insideevs.com/news/723882/north-american-battery-manufacturing-capacity-1200gwh-2030/
Unfortunately for him things will change and his superior priggishness will get boring and stale.
Nige vs Boris is an interesting development. I wonder if this will escalate and if BJ will enter the campaign in a more meaningful way. Be fun to see him in Clacton.
Putingate is certainly diminishing the chance of a Faragiste take-over of the Tories. For that we can be thankful.
If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.
If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?
If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.
Believing that full independence is necessary to have the full range of powers to manage the economy is a startling new idea, though.
*Unless said Smartphone also had a phaser/death ray attached ..but this sort of exercise in imagination has been explored in many Sci Fi plots
1. Indonesia
2. Brazil
3. Bangladesh
So if you are willing to consider an idea like taking a smartphone back to 1372 with a little bit more intellectual rigour than, "it would be like magic, innit?" then it can prompt you to think about the present day in new and interesting ways.
AIUI the Scottish setup has been quite effective, so that is a good, but maybe partial due to population density etc, model.
The RoW network is very badly neglected, with some bizarre general practices such as newly created publicly funded multiuser paths not being dedicated as RoWs. The current Govt has been as chaotic about this, as they are about everything else - with for example Theresa Coffey being a patsy for the landowner lobby.
My preference is for the role of LHAs to be broadened to be Public Highway bodies, rather than "Roads" Bodies with nods to other things, and public highway policing to become a statutory responsibility of police forces.
Access land in England is a mess - there are hundreds of areas of access land everywhere which cannot be reached without trespassing to get there. There's a good video by Paul Whitewick on that issue here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0GiPtOHI7U
It all seems ripe for a tidy up, and it will be popular with pretty much all of Sir Keir Starmer's support base. I don't see a political downside for him.
Might not have been called Gerald, however.
*gently moans*
The teal and yellow parties have 30% and 10% everywhere. The red and blue parties both have 40% in half the seats and 20% in the other half. Red and blue share all the seats, teal and yellow get nothing.
Reform can fail to win lots of seats simply by one, or another, of the other parties having more votes in each seat. They may not lose many deposits, but win very few seats.
Of course, related to our parallel chat, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Simple question: Do you believe in net zero, yes or no?
I do, thanks to clean technologies. That is the only viable solution for the environment, your dogma is bad for the environment.
Voting intentions of GB News viewers, by JL Partners:
🔴 LABOUR: 38% (-8)
🟣 REFORM: 25% (+7)
🔵 CON: 24% (-2)
🟠 LIB DEM: 8% (-2)
🟢 GREEN: 3% (+1)
June 17-20th, sample of 520 current or recent GB News viewers
The barriers to leaving or (re)joining are far more matters of practicality than pure legislation.
Note I've said anything myself about our rejoining during today's discussion. I'm just noting merely that the prospect being raised seems to prompt a rash of irrationally definitive arguments in response.
The significance that you attach to it depends strongly on your prior assumptions about what you think the voting intention of GB News viewers should be
Which may be never.
Having said that, clearly immigration is rising up the political agenda across Europe and a near-future EU may be amenable to qualifying freedom of movement somehow.
As I pointed out before one of the biggest culprits in the Brexit story was Blair / Brown not fixing that issue back in 2002/5...
https://x.com/mattsingh_/status/1805227899617710511?s=46
LAB 450
CON 110
LD 50
SNP 16
REF 1
GRN 1
Time will tell if this is one of those which has Corbyn on 0.6% or something stupid in his seat which calls the rest of the model into question