So it seems Ukraine may not be firing Storm Shadow missiles into Russia after all. Starmer may have rolled back on his initial decision. Why? I can only assume due to substantial pressure from the others (US and Germany?). The question is why. Why do those countries seem to be more fearful of escalation than other Nato members? Do they have intelligence that they aren't sharing with us? I suspect not. What escalation are they worried about? Don't they realise Russia is doing pretty much everything it can already?
One curious thing though. If Trump comes in and cuts off the aid, what will Ukraine do with all their remaining HIMARS and Storm Shadows? Fire them at Russia?
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
You may struggle with that aim. The Conservative Party doesn't seem to stand for anything except bungs for rich pensioners, and half the fossil membership is, apparently, desperate for a merger with Reform.
Ah, and the rest of that half merely want to go to bed with Reform. As if the electorate will then think "well, they're not the same really."
I'm now having visions of Suella and Nige as a latter day version of David Steel and David Owen. Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government. LOL.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
It seems to me that a lot of people are posting what they think the position should be rather than looking objectively at what the position actually is.
I suggest everyone goes to the link and takes just a couple of minutes to carefully scroll down 538's listing of the most recent polls.
There's no evidence at all that Harris is outperforming Biden - indeed the contrary is the case - in most cases Biden is outpolling Harris. And that's despite the debate - which will fade over time, and there isn't going to be a debate near election day.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Everything you say is right. Musk is though a bit of a superhero. I don't see him doing too much harm with his faults, and he does the most amazing things that are good (well, if you're someone that likes tech).
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
BIB - Are you talking about Leon or Musk?
One thing I am not is thin-skinned. People say ALL kinds of shit about mne on here, like I am a Nazi, a pedophile, or a fucking secret Lib Dem, I don't mind, it's a site for debate and I like vigorous debate, and I really don't care about nasty words
Also, no, not a hypocrite. A drunken hedonistic narcissist with major kinky dom issues, sure, I did a rape trial for that, but they acquitted me. What I am NOT is an over-sharer
Never change, @Leon ! PB would be duller without you.
Insight of the month from @HYUFD, which is why he should never change either: “It remains close. Nearly half of Americans will vote for Trump even if he is in prison, nearly half of Americans will vote for Biden even if he is in a coma.”
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
Have you forgotten about his tendency to do the latter as well?
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
Possible? Certainly. Consistent with free-speech? Probably not.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
In the two cases I have highlighted, he was attempting to suppress factual information.
In the case of the private jet tracker, it was just simple republishing of publicly available information.
In the case of Media Matters, it was a factual description of something they had done on Twitter, and the results they obtained.
And, for what it's worth, we have a system designed to prevent against defamation, which is the libel laws. But, of course, if no one knows who you are, then what protection does anyone have against anonymous defamation? Which is - of course - an issue that all the online platforms have.
Not much mention of prisons on here - I think what's going on is interesting. The immediate prisons crisis has led to, and given a justification for, today's announcement, but also reflects a change of tone. I think Labour is switching towards a model that seeks to reduce prison numbers in the longer term and focuses more on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The appointment of Timpson, and the announcement that 1,000 new probation officers are to be trained up, suggest this.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
Insight of the month from @HYUFD, which is why he should never change either: “It remains close. Nearly half of Americans will vote for Trump even if he is in prison, nearly half of Americans will vote for Biden even if he is in a coma.”
Sadly very true.
I'm really not sure it is so true if they have a proper alternative.
Trump is just the bully in the care home (apologies to his prior opponents).
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
As I don't support either the Conservatives or Reform, I imagine my view doesn't count for much in this.
From the outside, however, I've always seen a huge paradox in Reform - the leadership (Farage, Tice) are Thatcherites supporting lower taxes especially (I suspect) for the wealthy and arguing the benefits of trickledown. The Reform voter set is more complex and nuanced - there will be some who think that way but my feeling is many want higher spending but they want it in WWC areas rather than on "migrants". Both sides of the Reform circle can agree on the need to reduce immigration but that's more about tightening the rules of entry for the 96% legal migration rather than worrying about the 4% illegal. Beyond that, and a general cultural conservatism,. I don't see much to hold Reform together.
As for the Conservative Party, the key has to be to return to the days of sound fiscal management. Eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt (and hoping economic growth and lower interest rates will alleviate the debt repayments). The elephant in the room is how do you return the public finances to surplus (or near) given the huge pressures on Services (NHS, education, defence, prisons to name but four)? Osborne worked on £5 of spending cuts for every £1 of tax rises - now, a future Conservative Shadow CoE might play a similar game or they might take a long look at tax rates and allowances.
Agree with much of that. Yes fiscal conservatism works for the Tories but for Reform it limits the gains they can make amongst the white working class compared to their continental counterparts on the nationalist right as the white working class maybe more socially conservative than the middle class and more pro Brexit, protectionist and anti immigration but they also tend to be more in favour of higher taxes on the rich and more spending on public services and nationalised industry https://x.com/Phillip_Blond/status/1811778648392814820
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
I see the Welsh are about to get rid of their non white First Minister very quickly, just like the Scots.
Are the Celts intrinsically racist as it is a bad look.
Wait till you hear about the English.
The English are the best, the most important job in the country was held by a Muslim who left of his own accord.
Nasser Hussain captain of the men's cricket team, there is no more exalted rank in the world.
Nasser’s a Muslim name but I don’t think he’s Muslim is he?
He's about a good Muslim as I am.
But there is something about allegiance and cricket which irrationally gets to people. It famously annoyed Norman Tebbit. It has bewildered England's captain Nasser Hussain, a Madras-born, non-practising Muslim who cannot understand why British-born Asians do not support England.
Only having one heritage (ok two if you count Wiltshire) I have no issues in who I support. England. For everything. If you are born in England but your family heritage is India or Pakistan, and there is a strong culture of supporting those teams in your family, I can see why they don’t choose England for cricket. But as we saw last week, they do choose England for football. It’s complicated. The Tebbit test is far too simplistic, and rather divisive.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Builder of overpriced vehicles that stimulated development but ultimately were costly failures?
Mad bully whose staff all loathed him?
Those could work.
I don't see the amazing civil engineering achievements that made up for Brunel's catastrophes in shipping and locomotives though.
Nor do I see Musk as a good family man or a generous friend.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Everything you say is right. Musk is though a bit of a superhero. I don't see him doing too much harm with his faults, and he does the most amazing things that are good (well, if you're someone that likes tech).
Warts and all, I'd quite like a few more Musks.
I love a lot of what Musk has done - particularly with SpaceX, but also in terms of kickstarting the whole battery electric revolution.
But he has also - like Henry Ford - gone slightly mad. And he's made the mistake of many successful people, in assuming that because he's quite good at x and y, that he must know everything about a, b, and c.
Speaking of which Leon I visited somewhere yesterday that if you've never been to has some of your famous 'noom' in spades.
St Agatha's Church, Easby, nr. Richmond (Yorks).
Set in the grounds of a ruined convent, on a Saxon floor plan, with genuine surviving 12th century wall paintings.
Cost - £1 donation requested for the car park.
Truly amazing place.
Ta. I keep intending to do a tour of northern England, it's actually one of the last really interesting corners of Europe I don't know so well (eg, never been to Sheffield, nor Whitby, nor the Dales). I intend to amend this in early autumn, so thanks
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Sure: but the Republicans covered up Reagan's dementia in his last years in office, but it didn't stop Bush following him as President. So, it might cut through. But I'm not sure it's that much of a killer line, once you have a compis mentis President. It also raises the question - given Trump's advancing years - of who might be pulling his strings as his cognitive impairment continues.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
I've bigly triggered you this evening!
Oh you triggered me much more yesterday with your belief that the basics of chemistry and petrochemical refining were a matter of opinion rather than simple fact.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
That will work with the committed MAGAists but the obvious answer for the independents is: it's a gradually deteriorating situation, it's not binary.
This must be a first, ethics gets a lawyer into trouble.
'F**king finally, a criminal question' - barrister fined for swearing through ethics exam
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 by the Bar Standards Board for letting out his inner voice during an exam.
Jack Sadler, who was at 5KBW and is also an accomplished photographer, turned the air blue during his Professional Ethics Assessment last July.
Sadler was sitting the exam remotely and said he didn’t realise his webcam was being used to record his voice and actions. The BSB highlighted seven comments it viewed as crossing a line.
When the exam proctor, who can communicate with candidates via an online chat, told Sadler to show his desk to the camera and reminded him that he couldn’t wear any kind of watch, the barrister exclaimed, “What is a watch going to do, how the fuck am I going to cheat with a watch, come on”.
Sadler wasn't delighted at the proctor's attempts to contact him, blurting out, “What? Fucking piss off, I don’t need to start a fucking chat”.
“This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off”, he said, before apparently deciding to ignore the alerts: “Right, go away now, fine, just going to sit there fucking flashing and be annoying”.
Later, Sadler expressed his relief at coming across a preferred topic: “Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit... How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly”.
The thrill appears to have worn off quickly, however, prompting Sadler to remark, “I’m so fucking bored of this”.
This must be a first, ethics gets a lawyer into trouble.
'F**king finally, a criminal question' - barrister fined for swearing through ethics exam
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 by the Bar Standards Board for letting out his inner voice during an exam.
Jack Sadler, who was at 5KBW and is also an accomplished photographer, turned the air blue during his Professional Ethics Assessment last July.
Sadler was sitting the exam remotely and said he didn’t realise his webcam was being used to record his voice and actions. The BSB highlighted seven comments it viewed as crossing a line.
When the exam proctor, who can communicate with candidates via an online chat, told Sadler to show his desk to the camera and reminded him that he couldn’t wear any kind of watch, the barrister exclaimed, “What is a watch going to do, how the fuck am I going to cheat with a watch, come on”.
Sadler wasn't delighted at the proctor's attempts to contact him, blurting out, “What? Fucking piss off, I don’t need to start a fucking chat”.
“This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off”, he said, before apparently deciding to ignore the alerts: “Right, go away now, fine, just going to sit there fucking flashing and be annoying”.
Later, Sadler expressed his relief at coming across a preferred topic: “Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit... How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly”.
The thrill appears to have worn off quickly, however, prompting Sadler to remark, “I’m so fucking bored of this”.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
That will work with the committed MAGAists but the obvious answer for the independents is: it's a gradually deteriorating situation, it's not binary.
It would also be an extraordinarily reckless attack line for Trump, whose behaviour in the dog days of his presidency was so off the wall a senior Army officer announced he would no longer take orders from the White House.
This must be a first, ethics gets a lawyer into trouble.
'F**king finally, a criminal question' - barrister fined for swearing through ethics exam
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 by the Bar Standards Board for letting out his inner voice during an exam.
Jack Sadler, who was at 5KBW and is also an accomplished photographer, turned the air blue during his Professional Ethics Assessment last July.
Sadler was sitting the exam remotely and said he didn’t realise his webcam was being used to record his voice and actions. The BSB highlighted seven comments it viewed as crossing a line.
When the exam proctor, who can communicate with candidates via an online chat, told Sadler to show his desk to the camera and reminded him that he couldn’t wear any kind of watch, the barrister exclaimed, “What is a watch going to do, how the fuck am I going to cheat with a watch, come on”.
Sadler wasn't delighted at the proctor's attempts to contact him, blurting out, “What? Fucking piss off, I don’t need to start a fucking chat”.
“This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off”, he said, before apparently deciding to ignore the alerts: “Right, go away now, fine, just going to sit there fucking flashing and be annoying”.
Later, Sadler expressed his relief at coming across a preferred topic: “Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit... How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly”.
The thrill appears to have worn off quickly, however, prompting Sadler to remark, “I’m so fucking bored of this”.
This must be a first, ethics gets a lawyer into trouble.
'F**king finally, a criminal question' - barrister fined for swearing through ethics exam
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 by the Bar Standards Board for letting out his inner voice during an exam.
Jack Sadler, who was at 5KBW and is also an accomplished photographer, turned the air blue during his Professional Ethics Assessment last July.
Sadler was sitting the exam remotely and said he didn’t realise his webcam was being used to record his voice and actions. The BSB highlighted seven comments it viewed as crossing a line.
When the exam proctor, who can communicate with candidates via an online chat, told Sadler to show his desk to the camera and reminded him that he couldn’t wear any kind of watch, the barrister exclaimed, “What is a watch going to do, how the fuck am I going to cheat with a watch, come on”.
Sadler wasn't delighted at the proctor's attempts to contact him, blurting out, “What? Fucking piss off, I don’t need to start a fucking chat”.
“This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off”, he said, before apparently deciding to ignore the alerts: “Right, go away now, fine, just going to sit there fucking flashing and be annoying”.
Later, Sadler expressed his relief at coming across a preferred topic: “Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit... How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly”.
The thrill appears to have worn off quickly, however, prompting Sadler to remark, “I’m so fucking bored of this”.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
As I don't support either the Conservatives or Reform, I imagine my view doesn't count for much in this.
From the outside, however, I've always seen a huge paradox in Reform - the leadership (Farage, Tice) are Thatcherites supporting lower taxes especially (I suspect) for the wealthy and arguing the benefits of trickledown. The Reform voter set is more complex and nuanced - there will be some who think that way but my feeling is many want higher spending but they want it in WWC areas rather than on "migrants". Both sides of the Reform circle can agree on the need to reduce immigration but that's more about tightening the rules of entry for the 96% legal migration rather than worrying about the 4% illegal. Beyond that, and a general cultural conservatism,. I don't see much to hold Reform together.
As for the Conservative Party, the key has to be to return to the days of sound fiscal management. Eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt (and hoping economic growth and lower interest rates will alleviate the debt repayments). The elephant in the room is how do you return the public finances to surplus (or near) given the huge pressures on Services (NHS, education, defence, prisons to name but four)? Osborne worked on £5 of spending cuts for every £1 of tax rises - now, a future Conservative Shadow CoE might play a similar game or they might take a long look at tax rates and allowances.
With the Liddems now only having 49 less seats than the Tories, they have a choice of being an anaemic version of the lib dems or an anaemic version of Reform.
Neither will be pdrticularly palatable to the electorate and I suspect Reform will stand a much better chance of winning seats of Labour in the north than the Tories have of winning seats off Labour and in particular the Libdems.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Sure: but the Republicans covered up Reagan's dementia in his last years in office, but it didn't stop Bush following him as President. So, it might cut through. But I'm not sure it's that much of a killer line, once you have a compis mentis President. It also raises the question - given Trump's advancing years - of who might be pulling his strings as his cognitive impairment continues.
I think the difference between Reagan and Biden is that it's one thing to cover up for someone in the job while they're in decline, it's another thing to actively push for their re-election, while they're in decline.
Reagan was never going to serve past 1989. At the minute you have a lot of Dems still saying "Yep, Joe's the man to take us through to 2028, no cognitive decline, no sir-ee." If Biden does step down, then there are a lot of Dems left with egg on their faces.
The story isn't about Biden, it's about his party's failure to act decisively.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Sure: but the Republicans covered up Reagan's dementia in his last years in office, but it didn't stop Bush following him as President. So, it might cut through. But I'm not sure it's that much of a killer line, once you have a compis mentis President. It also raises the question - given Trump's advancing years - of who might be pulling his strings as his cognitive impairment continues.
Laurel and Hardy did a movie called (I think) 'Do Detectives Think?' - It seems reasonable to ask 'Does Trump Think?'. Obviously he says that he does, but if it turns out he's some sort of early model robot I'd not be that surprised. He just spouts endless nonsense, but does occasionally spot that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes.
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
I think you are right.
Strategically, there is little to gain for the Tories in this Parliament trying to occupy the ground held by Labour and the LDs. That’s not necessarily my preference but I see how a Tory Party that just offers a less competent version of Labour could really suffer electorally.
I mostly agree with that, and think that the Tories ought to be chasing whatever right-wing positions resonate with younger.
For example, plenty of under-40s think that the NHS is fucked beyond redemption, so the Faragist position of shutting it down might prove to be surprisingly popular. Perhaps the Tories could come up with a less extreme version - how about a policy of forcing private health insurers to stop requiring people to go through crap NHS GP gatekeepers? That would surely be a big vote-winner.
Ensuring that all employers provide private health insurance would be another sensible policy for them - workplace healthcare, to go alongside workplace pensions.
Personally, I'd prefer trying to fix the NHS - but I can see how continuing to run it down might be a very popular with the sort of voters the Tories will need to attract if they're to regain power at some point in the 2030s.
My (working) son had a painful sinus condition. Phoned doctor. All appointments gone, try again at 8AM tomorrow.
looked up web GP on Google. Secured 15 min video appointment 2 hours later. £40. Prescription provided direct to chemists for collection an hour later. Because it was a private prescription he paid actual cost £5, half the price of an NHS prescription.
Is it any surprise young people think it's a waste of the taxes they pay?
Bloody hell, I pay more than twice that for a slightly-dodgy online GP. There are a couple of decent South African online doctors that lots of friends use for about R400 a throw (about £20), though getting prescriptions filled is expensive because of courier costs.
Contraception is the big one - even if you do take a day off to get an NHS GP appointment, they won't give you anything other than the crappy combined pill unless you tell them you're a sex worker (in which case there'd be lots of very judge-y follow-up questions). You can supposedly now get Evra patches or Nuvarings for £40/month from big chemists, but Implanon/Nexplanon still needs you to lie about being a sex worker, or go abroad.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Builder of overpriced vehicles that stimulated development but ultimately were costly failures?
Mad bully whose staff all loathed him?
Those could work.
I don't see the amazing civil engineering achievements that made up for Brunel's catastrophes in shipping and locomotives though.
Nor do I see Musk as a good family man or a generous friend.
Re: Henry Ford, you left out his rather (!) erratic politics.
And not sure that "good family man" or "a generous friend" is truer of HF than of EM?
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Yes, quite. As ever, it's the cover up that kills you, not the "crime"
Many senior Dems KNEW Biden was incapable and probably demented (and therefore worsening, speedily, over time). They hid this from the voters, and - incredibly - tried to foist a SECOND Biden presidency on the electorate, hoping to hide this.... forever?
That cannot stand. Yes, Trump is the alternative, but this cannot stand. It is monstrously wrong
As you say, what happens when this finally impinges on voters? I don't think it has, yet. Most voters are quite dumb and unniterested in politics, it takes them a while to catch up. But when they do?? Could be painful
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Sure: but the Republicans covered up Reagan's dementia in his last years in office, but it didn't stop Bush following him as President. So, it might cut through. But I'm not sure it's that much of a killer line, once you have a compis mentis President. It also raises the question - given Trump's advancing years - of who might be pulling his strings as his cognitive impairment continues.
Laurel and Hardy did a movie called (I think) 'Do Detectives Think?' - It seems reasonable to ask 'Does Trump Think?'. Obviously he says that he does, but if it turns out he's some sort of early model robot I'd not be that surprised. He just spouts endless nonsense, but does occasionally spot that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
In the two cases I have highlighted, he was attempting to suppress factual information.
In the case of the private jet tracker, it was just simple republishing of publicly available information.
In the case of Media Matters, it was a factual description of something they had done on Twitter, and the results they obtained.
And, for what it's worth, we have a system designed to prevent against defamation, which is the libel laws. But, of course, if no one knows who you are, then what protection does anyone have against anonymous defamation? Which is - of course - an issue that all the online platforms have.
Your anonymity on the internet is inversely proportional to the amount you irritate/annoy/outrage others into making the effort to pull the curtain back.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Builder of overpriced vehicles that stimulated development but ultimately were costly failures?
Mad bully whose staff all loathed him?
Those could work.
I don't see the amazing civil engineering achievements that made up for Brunel's catastrophes in shipping and locomotives though.
Nor do I see Musk as a good family man or a generous friend.
Re: Henry Ford, you left out his rather (!) erratic politics.
And not sure that "good family man" or "a generous friend" is truer of HF than of EM?
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Sure: but the Republicans covered up Reagan's dementia in his last years in office, but it didn't stop Bush following him as President. So, it might cut through. But I'm not sure it's that much of a killer line, once you have a compis mentis President. It also raises the question - given Trump's advancing years - of who might be pulling his strings as his cognitive impairment continues.
I think the difference between Reagan and Biden is that it's one thing to cover up for someone in the job while they're in decline, it's another thing to actively push for their re-election, while they're in decline.
Reagan was never going to serve past 1989. At the minute you have a lot of Dems still saying "Yep, Joe's the man to take us through to 2028, no cognitive decline, no sir-ee." If Biden does step down, then there are a lot of Dems left with egg on their faces.
The story isn't about Biden, it's about his party's failure to act decisively.
Sure, but that story mostly goes away the day that Biden is no longer the nominee. I mean, there will still be some people that really care, but how many of them will be undecided voters?
Also, government is delegation. How many actual decisions does the President make rather than his subordinates and cabinet ministers? It's like the first episode of Yes Prime Minister, when Jim discovers that now he's the boss, there's simply not much to do.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Howard Hughes.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
I've bigly triggered you this evening!
Oh you triggered me much more yesterday with your belief that the basics of chemistry and petrochemical refining were a matter of opinion rather than simple fact.
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
Fking nonsense.
Just Tory navel gazing. Keep this up and youll be out of power for ages or just plain dead.
On what grounds? Any business or organisation to survive needs a distinctive brand and market share so I don't see anything wrong with what i said
yes they do. But your brand is currently crap. your market share has fallen off a cliff and you have no leadership.
Meanwhile the country needs a functioning opposition and not a bunch of idiots fighting the last war.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
In the two cases I have highlighted, he was attempting to suppress factual information.
In the case of the private jet tracker, it was just simple republishing of publicly available information.
In the case of Media Matters, it was a factual description of something they had done on Twitter, and the results they obtained.
And, for what it's worth, we have a system designed to prevent against defamation, which is the libel laws. But, of course, if no one knows who you are, then what protection does anyone have against anonymous defamation? Which is - of course - an issue that all the online platforms have.
Your anonymity on the internet is inversely proportional to the amount you irritate/annoy/outrage others into making the effort to pull the curtain back.
I dunno, it's pretty easy to be truly anonymous on Twitter and/or PB. All you need to do is use Tor to sign up and use a fake or throw away email address.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Howard Hughes.
You sometimes wonder if perhaps he more resembles Charles Lindbergh.
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
Fking nonsense.
Just Tory navel gazing. Keep this up and youll be out of power for ages or just plain dead.
On what grounds? Any business or organisation to survive needs a distinctive brand and market share so I don't see anything wrong with what i said
In principle I agree, but what is the distinctive brand of The Conservative Party?
It should be lower taxes, control on public spending, control of our borders while welcoming those with skills we need, support for the monarchy and our traditions and consumer choice in public services and strong defence and law and order. Plus expanding home ownership while protecting the most beautiful parts of our public service
Thats what the Cons told people they were doing. Their problem isnt what they said its what they didnt do.
This must be a first, ethics gets a lawyer into trouble.
'F**king finally, a criminal question' - barrister fined for swearing through ethics exam
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 by the Bar Standards Board for letting out his inner voice during an exam.
Jack Sadler, who was at 5KBW and is also an accomplished photographer, turned the air blue during his Professional Ethics Assessment last July.
Sadler was sitting the exam remotely and said he didn’t realise his webcam was being used to record his voice and actions. The BSB highlighted seven comments it viewed as crossing a line.
When the exam proctor, who can communicate with candidates via an online chat, told Sadler to show his desk to the camera and reminded him that he couldn’t wear any kind of watch, the barrister exclaimed, “What is a watch going to do, how the fuck am I going to cheat with a watch, come on”.
Sadler wasn't delighted at the proctor's attempts to contact him, blurting out, “What? Fucking piss off, I don’t need to start a fucking chat”.
“This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off”, he said, before apparently deciding to ignore the alerts: “Right, go away now, fine, just going to sit there fucking flashing and be annoying”.
Later, Sadler expressed his relief at coming across a preferred topic: “Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit... How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly”.
The thrill appears to have worn off quickly, however, prompting Sadler to remark, “I’m so fucking bored of this”.
This must be a first, ethics gets a lawyer into trouble.
'F**king finally, a criminal question' - barrister fined for swearing through ethics exam
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 by the Bar Standards Board for letting out his inner voice during an exam.
Jack Sadler, who was at 5KBW and is also an accomplished photographer, turned the air blue during his Professional Ethics Assessment last July.
Sadler was sitting the exam remotely and said he didn’t realise his webcam was being used to record his voice and actions. The BSB highlighted seven comments it viewed as crossing a line.
When the exam proctor, who can communicate with candidates via an online chat, told Sadler to show his desk to the camera and reminded him that he couldn’t wear any kind of watch, the barrister exclaimed, “What is a watch going to do, how the fuck am I going to cheat with a watch, come on”.
Sadler wasn't delighted at the proctor's attempts to contact him, blurting out, “What? Fucking piss off, I don’t need to start a fucking chat”.
“This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off”, he said, before apparently deciding to ignore the alerts: “Right, go away now, fine, just going to sit there fucking flashing and be annoying”.
Later, Sadler expressed his relief at coming across a preferred topic: “Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit... How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly”.
The thrill appears to have worn off quickly, however, prompting Sadler to remark, “I’m so fucking bored of this”.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
As I don't support either the Conservatives or Reform, I imagine my view doesn't count for much in this.
From the outside, however, I've always seen a huge paradox in Reform - the leadership (Farage, Tice) are Thatcherites supporting lower taxes especially (I suspect) for the wealthy and arguing the benefits of trickledown. The Reform voter set is more complex and nuanced - there will be some who think that way but my feeling is many want higher spending but they want it in WWC areas rather than on "migrants". Both sides of the Reform circle can agree on the need to reduce immigration but that's more about tightening the rules of entry for the 96% legal migration rather than worrying about the 4% illegal. Beyond that, and a general cultural conservatism,. I don't see much to hold Reform together.
As for the Conservative Party, the key has to be to return to the days of sound fiscal management. Eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt (and hoping economic growth and lower interest rates will alleviate the debt repayments). The elephant in the room is how do you return the public finances to surplus (or near) given the huge pressures on Services (NHS, education, defence, prisons to name but four)? Osborne worked on £5 of spending cuts for every £1 of tax rises - now, a future Conservative Shadow CoE might play a similar game or they might take a long look at tax rates and allowances.
Agree with much of that. Yes fiscal conservatism works for the Tories but for Reform it limits the gains they can make amongst the white working class compared to their continental counterparts on the nationalist right as the white working class maybe more socially conservative than the middle class and more pro Brexit, protectionist and anti immigration but they also tend to be more in favour of higher taxes on the rich and more spending on public services and nationalised industry https://x.com/Phillip_Blond/status/1811778648392814820
It underlines the idea old fashioned concepts of "left" and "right" should be consigned to history. I find very little traditionally "right wing" in Reform and it's not a million miles from the ideas of Sahra Wagenknecht which might explain why it draws so much support from Labour voters.
Conservatives can't compete on the same ground of cultural conservatism and spending as Reform or a Wagenknecht-style party nor should they play on the same tax raising ground.
Conservatives should have the fundamental principle of sound fiscal management - that doesn't preclude tax rises when necessary but works to the ideal of lowering taxes when possible and responsible. How that is balanced with the efficient and effective provision of public services is the detail but the aim has to be to return the public finances to surplus and begin to reduce the overall debt (and hope growth and interest rates help).
As an aside, I see the benefit of borrowing to fund major capital infrastructure projects and within a reasonable fiscal envelope, I'd like to see more of that as a mechanism for stimulating growth.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Sure: but the Republicans covered up Reagan's dementia in his last years in office, but it didn't stop Bush following him as President. So, it might cut through. But I'm not sure it's that much of a killer line, once you have a compis mentis President. It also raises the question - given Trump's advancing years - of who might be pulling his strings as his cognitive impairment continues.
I think the difference between Reagan and Biden is that it's one thing to cover up for someone in the job while they're in decline, it's another thing to actively push for their re-election, while they're in decline.
Reagan was never going to serve past 1989. At the minute you have a lot of Dems still saying "Yep, Joe's the man to take us through to 2028, no cognitive decline, no sir-ee." If Biden does step down, then there are a lot of Dems left with egg on their faces.
The story isn't about Biden, it's about his party's failure to act decisively.
Sure, but that story mostly goes away the day that Biden is no longer the nominee. I mean, there will still be some people that really care, but how many of them will be undecided voters?
Also, government is delegation. How many actual decisions does the President make rather than his subordinates and cabinet ministers? It's like the first episode of Yes Prime Minister, when Jim discovers that now he's the boss, there's simply not much to do.
It's in TSE's thread header on the previous thread.
Just to quote those tweets, "Prominent Democrats interviewed by CNN blamed the president's inner circle for keeping Biden away from unscripted settings and hiding his decline."; "Back in Washington, there have been clear signs throughout the his term of the president being increasingly stage managed"".
How can you trust people who knowingly put someone they know isn't up to the job up for re-election?
To be fair, the same is true of the GOP putting Trump back up for re-election.
Speaking of which Leon I visited somewhere yesterday that if you've never been to has some of your famous 'noom' in spades.
St Agatha's Church, Easby, nr. Richmond (Yorks).
Set in the grounds of a ruined convent, on a Saxon floor plan, with genuine surviving 12th century wall paintings.
Cost - £1 donation requested for the car park.
Truly amazing place.
Ta. I keep intending to do a tour of northern England, it's actually one of the last really interesting corners of Europe I don't know so well (eg, never been to Sheffield, nor Whitby, nor the Dales). I intend to amend this in early autumn, so thanks
I went to the Isle of Man last week. I don't know how "interesting" you'd find it compared to some of the places you visit but it's not without its charm.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Yes, quite. As ever, it's the cover up that kills you, not the "crime"
Many senior Dems KNEW Biden was incapable and probably demented (and therefore worsening, speedily, over time). They hid this from the voters, and - incredibly - tried to foist a SECOND Biden presidency on the electorate, hoping to hide this.... forever?
That cannot stand. Yes, Trump is the alternative, but this cannot stand. It is monstrously wrong
As you say, what happens when this finally impinges on voters? I don't think it has, yet. Most voters are quite dumb and unniterested in politics, it takes them a while to catch up. But when they do?? Could be painful
A seer speaks... bullshit as usual.
If, as I expect, the Dems replace Biden Trump will lose. Any talk of a Biden dementia cover-up will be a footnote to history at best.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Builder of overpriced vehicles that stimulated development but ultimately were costly failures?
Mad bully whose staff all loathed him?
Those could work.
I don't see the amazing civil engineering achievements that made up for Brunel's catastrophes in shipping and locomotives though.
Nor do I see Musk as a good family man or a generous friend.
I used to see Musk as a modern-day IKB, and even said so. There are numerous similarities.
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
Fking nonsense.
Just Tory navel gazing. Keep this up and youll be out of power for ages or just plain dead.
On what grounds? Any business or organisation to survive needs a distinctive brand and market share so I don't see anything wrong with what i said
In principle I agree, but what is the distinctive brand of The Conservative Party?
It should be lower taxes, control on public spending, control of our borders while welcoming those with skills we need, support for the monarchy and our traditions and consumer choice in public services and strong defence and law and order. Plus expanding home ownership while protecting the most beautiful parts of our public service
Thats what the Cons told people they were doing. Their problem isnt what they said its what they didnt do.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
BIB - Are you talking about Leon or Musk?
One thing I am not is thin-skinned. People say ALL kinds of shit about mne on here, like I am a Nazi, a pedophile, or a fucking secret Lib Dem, I don't mind, it's a site for debate and I like vigorous debate, and I really don't care about nasty words
Also, no, not a hypocrite. A drunken hedonistic narcissist with major kinky dom issues, sure, I did a rape trial for that, but they acquitted me. What I am NOT is an over-sharer
Who the hell accused you of being a secret LD? Are you a less successful equivalent to our Liz Truss mole.
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
I think you are right.
Strategically, there is little to gain for the Tories in this Parliament trying to occupy the ground held by Labour and the LDs. That’s not necessarily my preference but I see how a Tory Party that just offers a less competent version of Labour could really suffer electorally.
I mostly agree with that, and think that the Tories ought to be chasing whatever right-wing positions resonate with younger.
For example, plenty of under-40s think that the NHS is fucked beyond redemption, so the Faragist position of shutting it down might prove to be surprisingly popular. Perhaps the Tories could come up with a less extreme version - how about a policy of forcing private health insurers to stop requiring people to go through crap NHS GP gatekeepers? That would surely be a big vote-winner.
Ensuring that all employers provide private health insurance would be another sensible policy for them - workplace healthcare, to go alongside workplace pensions.
Personally, I'd prefer trying to fix the NHS - but I can see how continuing to run it down might be a very popular with the sort of voters the Tories will need to attract if they're to regain power at some point in the 2030s.
My (working) son had a painful sinus condition. Phoned doctor. All appointments gone, try again at 8AM tomorrow.
looked up web GP on Google. Secured 15 min video appointment 2 hours later. £40. Prescription provided direct to chemists for collection an hour later. Because it was a private prescription he paid actual cost £5, half the price of an NHS prescription.
Is it any surprise young people think it's a waste of the taxes they pay?
My repeat prescription has turned into a nightmare post-covid (somewhat ironically). Went from a centralised 'yup - every few months, there you go' to a more Russian roulette 'maybe it'll arrive, maybe not' monthly sh*t-show. Partly for anxiety meds which makes makes it all the worse. I spend the last week or so of my prescription in an ever increasing panic about the tablets.
A few weeks ago I spent almost 10hrs on the phone to get it sorted. I've since switched to getting my prescription privately at a few clicks of a button.
I have a very forgiving line manager. I'd hate to imagine trying to navigate this if your work life couldn't accommodate spending an hour+ on hold to your GP several days in a row.
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
Fking nonsense.
Just Tory navel gazing. Keep this up and youll be out of power for ages or just plain dead.
On what grounds? Any business or organisation to survive needs a distinctive brand and market share so I don't see anything wrong with what i said
In principle I agree, but what is the distinctive brand of The Conservative Party?
It should be lower taxes, control on public spending, control of our borders while welcoming those with skills we need, support for the monarchy and our traditions and consumer choice in public services and strong defence and law and order. Plus expanding home ownership while protecting the most beautiful parts of our public service
Thats what the Cons told people they were doing. Their problem isnt what they said its what they didnt do.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Yes, quite. As ever, it's the cover up that kills you, not the "crime"
Many senior Dems KNEW Biden was incapable and probably demented (and therefore worsening, speedily, over time). They hid this from the voters, and - incredibly - tried to foist a SECOND Biden presidency on the electorate, hoping to hide this.... forever?
That cannot stand. Yes, Trump is the alternative, but this cannot stand. It is monstrously wrong
As you say, what happens when this finally impinges on voters? I don't think it has, yet. Most voters are quite dumb and unniterested in politics, it takes them a while to catch up. But when they do?? Could be painful
A seer speaks... bullshit as usual.
If, as I expect, the Dems replace Biden Trump will lose. Any talk of a Biden dementia cover-up will be a footnote to history at best.
If the Dems replace Biden with Harris I expect it to be 2016 2, Harris may win the popular vote narrowly but Trump will win Michigan, PA and Wisconsin and Arizona, the EC and the presidency.
Against Biden though even if Trump narrowly won the popular vote it is not impossible Biden could win the EC, holding Wisconsin, Michigan and his home state of PA and maybe even Georgia (albeit likely losing Arizona and Nevada). Biden polls better in the RCP average in Wisconsin and Michigan for example now than he does nationally
George Osborne & Ed Balls discuss the leadership election on their Political Currency podcast.
Basically, Osborne thinks it may be a long contest with James Cleverly as possible interim leader if Rishi wants to get out before the budget. None of the likely candidates has any experience of Opposition. He thinks the parliamentary party is more centrist than right wing, and cautions that the last three elections in Opposition were won by outsiders (Hague, IDS and Cameron). He also suggests MPs might send only one name to be approved by the members.
You'd need to judge the ratio of insight to hopecasting for yourself.
Not much mention of prisons on here - I think what's going on is interesting. The immediate prisons crisis has led to, and given a justification for, today's announcement, but also reflects a change of tone. I think Labour is switching towards a model that seeks to reduce prison numbers in the longer term and focuses more on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The appointment of Timpson, and the announcement that 1,000 new probation officers are to be trained up, suggest this.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
It comes from having a PM who actually understands Criminal Justice.
And shows how poorly we have been served by a decade of Tabloid oriented populism.
Speaking of which Leon I visited somewhere yesterday that if you've never been to has some of your famous 'noom' in spades.
St Agatha's Church, Easby, nr. Richmond (Yorks).
Set in the grounds of a ruined convent, on a Saxon floor plan, with genuine surviving 12th century wall paintings.
Cost - £1 donation requested for the car park.
Truly amazing place.
If it weren't for Biden's gaffe last night, I would have relayed to you all my journey yesterday to reprise the Merseyrail branch to Kirkby, which was extended a mile eastwards to a new Headbolt Lane station back in October.
Kirkby, like another Merseyrail station not too far away, Ormskirk, used to be a single track station with two railways terminating end on, the other railway in Kirkby's case being the Northern Rail line towards Wigan Wallgate. In October, the extension used up part of the Wigan line, doubling the track as far as Headbolt Lane, and the latter acting as the interchange with Northern Rail. But the new double track was left unelectrified (no third rail), a certain subset of the new Class 777 trains being able to use battery power to get to Headbolt Lane. Merseyrail have two west-facing platforms at Headbolt, with Northern having a third east-facing platform for their services. As the Northern branch was markedly different from the pre-October set-up, my Uber-Geekery, ah, compelled me to go forward one stop from Headbolt Lane to Rainford, a teeny little station with two platforms just long enough for two carriages.
On the way back, at Liverpool Lime Street, saw a Class 197 Transport for Wales unit awaiting return to Chester, and at London Euston, saw two brand new Class 805 high-speed trains in Avanti colours coupled together. And even closer to home, also checked out the new southwestern entrance to Stratford station that had only opened on Wednesday.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Builder of overpriced vehicles that stimulated development but ultimately were costly failures?
Mad bully whose staff all loathed him?
Those could work.
I don't see the amazing civil engineering achievements that made up for Brunel's catastrophes in shipping and locomotives though.
Nor do I see Musk as a good family man or a generous friend.
I used to see Musk as a modern-day IKB, and even said so. There are numerous similarities.
Brunel had an unfortunate tendency to let his ambition and imagination outrun both the available technology and his investors' financial resources.
The atmospheric railway, iron hulled ships with screws, gyro compasses, shore tenders, bogie driving wheels, all could be justified and indeed in various guises all have been successful with modern materials. Just as the 7 foot gauge was in isolation a brilliant idea.
But - they didn't work and cost a fortune.
Now, Musk has made a success of Tesla a la the 7 foot gauge. It's bold, exciting and cool so people flock to it. And like the Great Britain, it will probably drive automotive development in ways that would not otherwise have happened.
But - most of his other ideas don't work and cost a fortune.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
In the two cases I have highlighted, he was attempting to suppress factual information.
In the case of the private jet tracker, it was just simple republishing of publicly available information.
In the case of Media Matters, it was a factual description of something they had done on Twitter, and the results they obtained.
And, for what it's worth, we have a system designed to prevent against defamation, which is the libel laws. But, of course, if no one knows who you are, then what protection does anyone have against anonymous defamation? Which is - of course - an issue that all the online platforms have.
Your anonymity on the internet is inversely proportional to the amount you irritate/annoy/outrage others into making the effort to pull the curtain back.
I dunno, it's pretty easy to be truly anonymous on Twitter and/or PB. All you need to do is use Tor to sign up and use a fake or throw away email address.
Then there is effectively no way to identify you.
Twitter killed their .onion service last year, didn't they?
Personally, I would avoid using Tor to access normal web services because so many of the exit nodes appear to be sponsored by state security agencies. It might be okay, but I don't see how it buys you much more than trad TLS 1.3
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
In the two cases I have highlighted, he was attempting to suppress factual information.
In the case of the private jet tracker, it was just simple republishing of publicly available information.
In the case of Media Matters, it was a factual description of something they had done on Twitter, and the results they obtained.
And, for what it's worth, we have a system designed to prevent against defamation, which is the libel laws. But, of course, if no one knows who you are, then what protection does anyone have against anonymous defamation? Which is - of course - an issue that all the online platforms have.
Your anonymity on the internet is inversely proportional to the amount you irritate/annoy/outrage others into making the effort to pull the curtain back.
I dunno, it's pretty easy to be truly anonymous on Twitter and/or PB. All you need to do is use Tor to sign up and use a fake or throw away email address.
Then there is effectively no way to identify you.
AI might well be on the point of getting round that by analysing your words in various places and comparing a bit like a Graphologist.
Using TOR to post anonymously is an interesting one. Yes possible perhaps to drop the site in it by spouting defamations or copyright breaches without TSE without TSE getting you, but if you are using TOR, in the UK at least, I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if your ISP and GCHQ have not flagged you to police Drugs and Pedo squads in short order, which possibly is more detrimental to you than annoying TSE.
PS - forget fake email addresses. You cant post until you have received an email from Vanilla and responded.
You can't post if you use a valid gmail address to register either, becsuse the email Vanilla send out to validate it has your (RCS) name and email address on it so gmail blocks it under their spoofing protocols because it manifestly is from?Vanilla not you at Gmail.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
As I don't support either the Conservatives or Reform, I imagine my view doesn't count for much in this.
From the outside, however, I've always seen a huge paradox in Reform - the leadership (Farage, Tice) are Thatcherites supporting lower taxes especially (I suspect) for the wealthy and arguing the benefits of trickledown. The Reform voter set is more complex and nuanced - there will be some who think that way but my feeling is many want higher spending but they want it in WWC areas rather than on "migrants". Both sides of the Reform circle can agree on the need to reduce immigration but that's more about tightening the rules of entry for the 96% legal migration rather than worrying about the 4% illegal. Beyond that, and a general cultural conservatism,. I don't see much to hold Reform together.
As for the Conservative Party, the key has to be to return to the days of sound fiscal management. Eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt (and hoping economic growth and lower interest rates will alleviate the debt repayments). The elephant in the room is how do you return the public finances to surplus (or near) given the huge pressures on Services (NHS, education, defence, prisons to name but four)? Osborne worked on £5 of spending cuts for every £1 of tax rises - now, a future Conservative Shadow CoE might play a similar game or they might take a long look at tax rates and allowances.
Agree with much of that. Yes fiscal conservatism works for the Tories but for Reform it limits the gains they can make amongst the white working class compared to their continental counterparts on the nationalist right as the white working class maybe more socially conservative than the middle class and more pro Brexit, protectionist and anti immigration but they also tend to be more in favour of higher taxes on the rich and more spending on public services and nationalised industry https://x.com/Phillip_Blond/status/1811778648392814820
It underlines the idea old fashioned concepts of "left" and "right" should be consigned to history. I find very little traditionally "right wing" in Reform and it's not a million miles from the ideas of Sahra Wagenknecht which might explain why it draws so much support from Labour voters.
Conservatives can't compete on the same ground of cultural conservatism and spending as Reform or a Wagenknecht-style party nor should they play on the same tax raising ground.
Conservatives should have the fundamental principle of sound fiscal management - that doesn't preclude tax rises when necessary but works to the ideal of lowering taxes when possible and responsible. How that is balanced with the efficient and effective provision of public services is the detail but the aim has to be to return the public finances to surplus and begin to reduce the overall debt (and hope growth and interest rates help).
As an aside, I see the benefit of borrowing to fund major capital infrastructure projects and within a reasonable fiscal envelope, I'd like to see more of that as a mechanism for stimulating growth.
In part yes, hope Labour underperform economically and hope Reform take more of the socially conservative wwc voters from Labour too
Not much mention of prisons on here - I think what's going on is interesting. The immediate prisons crisis has led to, and given a justification for, today's announcement, but also reflects a change of tone. I think Labour is switching towards a model that seeks to reduce prison numbers in the longer term and focuses more on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The appointment of Timpson, and the announcement that 1,000 new probation officers are to be trained up, suggest this.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
It comes from having a PM who actually understands Criminal Justice.
And shows how poorly we have been served by a decade of Tabloid oriented populism.
Only a decade? New Labour wrote the book on tabloid headline seeking.
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
Fking nonsense.
Just Tory navel gazing. Keep this up and youll be out of power for ages or just plain dead.
On what grounds? Any business or organisation to survive needs a distinctive brand and market share so I don't see anything wrong with what i said
In principle I agree, but what is the distinctive brand of The Conservative Party?
It should be lower taxes, control on public spending, control of our borders while welcoming those with skills we need, support for the monarchy and our traditions and consumer choice in public services and strong defence and law and order. Plus expanding home ownership while protecting the most beautiful parts of our public service
Thats what the Cons told people they were doing. Their problem isnt what they said its what they didnt do.
Your apostrophe key isn't working, just saying.
4 cough
You can confidently dismiss the posts of any man who doesn't know how to use an apostrophe as the utterances of a fool.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
As I don't support either the Conservatives or Reform, I imagine my view doesn't count for much in this.
From the outside, however, I've always seen a huge paradox in Reform - the leadership (Farage, Tice) are Thatcherites supporting lower taxes especially (I suspect) for the wealthy and arguing the benefits of trickledown. The Reform voter set is more complex and nuanced - there will be some who think that way but my feeling is many want higher spending but they want it in WWC areas rather than on "migrants". Both sides of the Reform circle can agree on the need to reduce immigration but that's more about tightening the rules of entry for the 96% legal migration rather than worrying about the 4% illegal. Beyond that, and a general cultural conservatism,. I don't see much to hold Reform together.
As for the Conservative Party, the key has to be to return to the days of sound fiscal management. Eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt (and hoping economic growth and lower interest rates will alleviate the debt repayments). The elephant in the room is how do you return the public finances to surplus (or near) given the huge pressures on Services (NHS, education, defence, prisons to name but four)? Osborne worked on £5 of spending cuts for every £1 of tax rises - now, a future Conservative Shadow CoE might play a similar game or they might take a long look at tax rates and allowances.
The more fundamental problem is that there is no role in modern Britain for a low tax, small state party. Too many people are dependent - because they are too old, sick, poorly paid, overburdened by ridiculous housing costs, or some combination of these things - for any solution that doesn't involve colossal spending on health and social security to fly. The money has to come from somewhere, and that, primarily, means screwing it out of the surviving cohort of working age taxpayers.
The main aim of Government must, therefore, be to try to ensure that we have high taxes and good public services, not high taxes and shit public services as was the case under the last lot. This entails maximising efficiency, minimising costs, and ensuring that the economy operates more equitably and isn't merely an engine for transmitting what's left of the nation's wealth upwards from the poor to the rich. Fantasy tax cuts or, for that matter, fantasy spending are policies for fringe parties like Reform and the Greens that don't have to worry about putting them into practice. We all saw what happened when such delusions took hold of a governing party from the example of the Truss ministry.
What the Tories need to win again is to desist from indulging in fantasy, wait for Labour to begin to make mistakes, and present a case that they have changed and can do the donkey work of improving the functioning of the state and economic outcomes better than the incumbents. It's boring, unglamorous and doesn't entail exposing everyone except pensioners to the icy blast of globalisation (for which, read, being bent over and buggered by rotten employers and various "investors" all over again.) It also means finally accepting that Saint Margaret didn't get absolutely everything right and the Eighties ain't coming back. Do they want to hear any if this? What do we all think?
Speaking of which Leon I visited somewhere yesterday that if you've never been to has some of your famous 'noom' in spades.
St Agatha's Church, Easby, nr. Richmond (Yorks).
Set in the grounds of a ruined convent, on a Saxon floor plan, with genuine surviving 12th century wall paintings.
Cost - £1 donation requested for the car park.
Truly amazing place.
If it weren't for Biden's gaffe last night, I would have relayed to you all my journey yesterday to reprise the Merseyrail branch to Kirkby, which was extended a mile eastwards to a new Headbolt Lane station back in October.
Kirkby, like another Merseyrail station not too far away, Ormskirk, used to be a single track station with two railways terminating end on, the other railway in Kirkby's case being the Northern Rail line towards Wigan Wallgate. In October, the extension used up part of the Wigan line, doubling the track as far as Headbolt Lane, and the latter acting as the interchange with Northern Rail. But the new double track was left unelectrified (no third rail), a certain subset of the new Class 777 trains being able to use battery power to get to Headbolt Lane. Merseyrail have two west-facing platforms at Headbolt, with Northern having a third east-facing platform for their services. As the Northern branch was markedly different from the pre-October set-up, my Uber-Geekery, ah, compelled me to go forward one stop from Headbolt Lane to Rainford, a teeny little station with two platforms just long enough for two carriages.
On the way back, at Liverpool Lime Street, saw a Class 197 Transport for Wales unit awaiting return to Chester, and at London Euston, saw two brand new Class 805 high-speed trains in Avanti colours coupled together. And even closer to home, also checked out the new southwestern entrance to Stratford station that had only opened on Wednesday.
Travelled to and from Liverpool on Avanti West Coast - impressive. Much better than EMR (wouldn't be difficult). I'm not sure why there is only an hourly service to Liverpool from London - should be half hourly.
Not much mention of prisons on here - I think what's going on is interesting. The immediate prisons crisis has led to, and given a justification for, today's announcement, but also reflects a change of tone. I think Labour is switching towards a model that seeks to reduce prison numbers in the longer term and focuses more on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The appointment of Timpson, and the announcement that 1,000 new probation officers are to be trained up, suggest this.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
It comes from having a PM who actually understands Criminal Justice.
And shows how poorly we have been served by a decade of Tabloid oriented populism.
Do you think that current sentences for crime are too harsh? A couple of days ago someone mentioned that in a gang murder he people holding down the victim got a year. I presume the one plunging the knife into the victim got longer.
A House Democrat says a heavyweight group of “super friends” is being assembled to head to the White House and tell Biden it’s time to go.
And Biden can still tell them to sod off, he has the majority of delegates at the convention and has said if they want to challenge him they can do so there.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
Zuckerberg did try to claim that he was defending people’s privacy *by* selling their personal data.
This is why many people love Zuckerberg. Not.
A fairly easy assumption is that any social media trillionaire is quite evil. My informed guess is that Musk is considerably less evil than most. Facebook knowingly invented the Like button even as they were told it would be deleterious for human mental health
Compared to that??
OMG Musk allows right wing views on his website! Well, guess what, a lot of people have rightwing views. They exist. Hear them, or you end up with voters electing Nazis
I'm happy to stipulate that Zuckerberg is a sociopathic twat. Satisfied ?
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
BIB - Are you talking about Leon or Musk?
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
ConHome finds in their latest survey Tory members reject any proposal to merge with ReformUK. However many do want to try and get an electoral pact with Reform.
you Tories will be fighting each other for the next 10 years instead of Labour. Or in your case surrendering to the LDs.
Reform have 5 seats and are second in 98 seats. Of that reform are second to Labour in 91 seats, seats the Tories havent a hope in hell of winning. Cut a pact to let them have a free ride in 100 seats and they stand down in the others.
Avoid a pointless conflict and take the war to Starmer. Farage will be trying to secure Labour votes while you worry about the Blue wall and the LDs.
You won't fit three of those egos in the same room. They'll spontaneously combust years before the next election.
Everyone bewails the possibility of the Tories going 'into their comfort zone' and becoming an unelectable party because they swerve right before seeing sense and embracing 'centrism' again, but what if their actual wilderness years aren't that - what if their unelectability is going to come from resentful centrist turds who insist that Farage and all his works be condemned to the last MP, and make the party into a corporatist ivory tower, Labour without the voters - the Lib Dems without the enthused base. Farage won't believe his luck.
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
Fking nonsense.
Just Tory navel gazing. Keep this up and youll be out of power for ages or just plain dead.
On what grounds? Any business or organisation to survive needs a distinctive brand and market share so I don't see anything wrong with what i said
In principle I agree, but what is the distinctive brand of The Conservative Party?
It should be lower taxes, control on public spending, control of our borders while welcoming those with skills we need, support for the monarchy and our traditions and consumer choice in public services and strong defence and law and order. Plus expanding home ownership while protecting the most beautiful parts of our public service
Thats what the Cons told people they were doing. Their problem isnt what they said its what they didnt do.
Your apostrophe key isn't working, just saying.
4 cough
You can confidently dismiss the posts of any man who doesn't know how to use an apostrophe as the utterances of a fool.
you can confidently dismiss the views of a pedant as the insecurities of a rule taker desperate to conform to imposed norms
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
BIB - Are you talking about Leon or Musk?
One thing I am not is thin-skinned. People say ALL kinds of shit about mne on here, like I am a Nazi, a pedophile, or a fucking secret Lib Dem, I don't mind, it's a site for debate and I like vigorous debate, and I really don't care about nasty words
Also, no, not a hypocrite. A drunken hedonistic narcissist with major kinky dom issues, sure, I did a rape trial for that, but they acquitted me. What I am NOT is an over-sharer
You might be free of shame, but that doesn't mean you're not easy to wind up.
Speaking of which Leon I visited somewhere yesterday that if you've never been to has some of your famous 'noom' in spades.
St Agatha's Church, Easby, nr. Richmond (Yorks).
Set in the grounds of a ruined convent, on a Saxon floor plan, with genuine surviving 12th century wall paintings.
Cost - £1 donation requested for the car park.
Truly amazing place.
If it weren't for Biden's gaffe last night, I would have relayed to you all my journey yesterday to reprise the Merseyrail branch to Kirkby, which was extended a mile eastwards to a new Headbolt Lane station back in October.
Kirkby, like another Merseyrail station not too far away, Ormskirk, used to be a single track station with two railways terminating end on, the other railway in Kirkby's case being the Northern Rail line towards Wigan Wallgate. In October, the extension used up part of the Wigan line, doubling the track as far as Headbolt Lane, and the latter acting as the interchange with Northern Rail. But the new double track was left unelectrified (no third rail), a certain subset of the new Class 777 trains being able to use battery power to get to Headbolt Lane. Merseyrail have two west-facing platforms at Headbolt, with Northern having a third east-facing platform for their services. As the Northern branch was markedly different from the pre-October set-up, my Uber-Geekery, ah, compelled me to go forward one stop from Headbolt Lane to Rainford, a teeny little station with two platforms just long enough for two carriages.
On the way back, at Liverpool Lime Street, saw a Class 197 Transport for Wales unit awaiting return to Chester, and at London Euston, saw two brand new Class 805 high-speed trains in Avanti colours coupled together. And even closer to home, also checked out the new southwestern entrance to Stratford station that had only opened on Wednesday.
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
Is it not possible to treat the freedom to express an opinion as being in a different category to the freedom to defame an individual?
In the two cases I have highlighted, he was attempting to suppress factual information.
In the case of the private jet tracker, it was just simple republishing of publicly available information.
In the case of Media Matters, it was a factual description of something they had done on Twitter, and the results they obtained.
And, for what it's worth, we have a system designed to prevent against defamation, which is the libel laws. But, of course, if no one knows who you are, then what protection does anyone have against anonymous defamation? Which is - of course - an issue that all the online platforms have.
Your anonymity on the internet is inversely proportional to the amount you irritate/annoy/outrage others into making the effort to pull the curtain back.
I dunno, it's pretty easy to be truly anonymous on Twitter and/or PB. All you need to do is use Tor to sign up and use a fake or throw away email address.
Then there is effectively no way to identify you.
AI might well be on the point of getting round that by analysing your words in various places and comparing a bit like a Graphologist.
Using TOR to post anonymously is an interesting one. Yes possible perhaps to drop the site in it by spouting defamations or copyright breaches without TSE without TSE getting you, but if you are using TOR, in the UK at least, I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if your ISP and GCHQ have not flagged you to police Drugs and Pedo squads in short order, which possibly is more detrimental to you than annoying TSE.
PS - forget fake email addresses. You cant post until you have received an email from Vanilla and responded.
You can't post if you use a valid gmail address to register either, becsuse the email Vanilla send out to validate it has your (RCS) name and email address on it so gmail blocks it under their spoofing protocols because it manifestly is from?Vanilla not you at Gmail.
Well, if you don't want the police to know you're using Tor*, then you can use a VPN, and then use Tor through the VPN. Or if you're a bit more technically sophisticated, you can get a disposable Amazon EC2 instance and then use SSH forwarding to send your traffic through there. Or you could walk to Starbucks and connect from there.
Once you have an anonymous internet connection, then it's a pot of piss to get yourself a disposable email address you can respond with.
It's not very difficult to be anonymous on the Internet.
* Of course, given there are around 2 million simultaneous Tor nodes at any given moment in time, then there are going to be hundreds of thousands of Tor users in the UK in any given month. Some will be having affairs. Some will be browsing child porn. Some will be buying illegal drugs. And some will be using to defame people anonymously on the Internet.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Yes, quite. As ever, it's the cover up that kills you, not the "crime"
Many senior Dems KNEW Biden was incapable and probably demented (and therefore worsening, speedily, over time). They hid this from the voters, and - incredibly - tried to foist a SECOND Biden presidency on the electorate, hoping to hide this.... forever?
That cannot stand. Yes, Trump is the alternative, but this cannot stand. It is monstrously wrong
As you say, what happens when this finally impinges on voters? I don't think it has, yet. Most voters are quite dumb and unniterested in politics, it takes them a while to catch up. But when they do?? Could be painful
Look at how the British public punished the Conservatives for making Truss - the intellectual equivalent of a lettuce - PM.
Now imagine if, six months before GE 2024, Sunak started staring off into space randomly, confused Zelensky with Putin, and mixed up his own Chancellor with Rachel Reeves. Then in the first debate against Starmer, he just stood there blankly, rocking back and forth.
We might be sympathetic to Sunak, but we'd rightly damn the Tories for putting him up as a candidate in the first place, when mechanisms exist to remove him.
This is exactly the situation in America, and if people could remove the partisan blinkers from their eyes, they'd realise this isn't bad for Biden, it's bad for the Democrat brand itself.
Not much mention of prisons on here - I think what's going on is interesting. The immediate prisons crisis has led to, and given a justification for, today's announcement, but also reflects a change of tone. I think Labour is switching towards a model that seeks to reduce prison numbers in the longer term and focuses more on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The appointment of Timpson, and the announcement that 1,000 new probation officers are to be trained up, suggest this.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
It comes from having a PM who actually understands Criminal Justice.
And shows how poorly we have been served by a decade of Tabloid oriented populism.
It's a shame Johnson never understood criminal justice.
But then, slimy bastards like him often get away with it, don't they?
I don't remember half of this venom being directed at Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, back when they were censoring the fuck out of the Leab Leak hypothesis, at the behest of the Biden Admin. Which is far far worse and more important than anything Musk has allegedly done
The PB left are pitifiul hypocrites, with weakened brains
I don't remember Dorsey or Zuckerberg pretending to be champions of free speech while suing people who exercised that right?
lol! You don't think Facebook and Twitter sold themselves as "the good guys"???
Get a grip
With all due respect, my issue is simply this:
Musk pretends that he gives a shit about free speech. Zuckerberg and Dorsey might or might not give a shit about free speech. But they certainly don't go out and pretend that they are - what were Musk's words - "a free speech absolutist".
Musk then demonstrates he is only really in favor of free speech he agrees with when he starts trying to sue critics into oblivion and publicly cancels the Twitter account of someone who does nothing more than track his private jet.
At the very least, he is absurdly thin skinned. More likely, he's a total hypocrite.
BIB - Are you talking about Leon or Musk?
One thing I am not is thin-skinned. People say ALL kinds of shit about mne on here, like I am a Nazi, a pedophile, or a fucking secret Lib Dem, I don't mind, it's a site for debate and I like vigorous debate, and I really don't care about nasty words
Also, no, not a hypocrite. A drunken hedonistic narcissist with major kinky dom issues, sure, I did a rape trial for that, but they acquitted me. What I am NOT is an over-sharer
Who the hell accused you of being a secret LD? Are you a less successful equivalent to our Liz Truss mole.
Leon being accused of being a LD must be the worst, they may as well call him Mr Gaylord Ponceyboots to coin one of his unique phrases!
It seems to me that a lot of people are posting what they think the position should be rather than looking objectively at what the position actually is.
I suggest everyone goes to the link and takes just a couple of minutes to carefully scroll down 538's listing of the most recent polls.
There's no evidence at all that Harris is outperforming Biden - indeed the contrary is the case - in most cases Biden is outpolling Harris. And that's despite the debate - which will fade over time, and there isn't going to be a debate near election day.
Speaking of which Leon I visited somewhere yesterday that if you've never been to has some of your famous 'noom' in spades.
St Agatha's Church, Easby, nr. Richmond (Yorks).
Set in the grounds of a ruined convent, on a Saxon floor plan, with genuine surviving 12th century wall paintings.
Cost - £1 donation requested for the car park.
Truly amazing place.
If it weren't for Biden's gaffe last night, I would have relayed to you all my journey yesterday to reprise the Merseyrail branch to Kirkby, which was extended a mile eastwards to a new Headbolt Lane station back in October.
Kirkby, like another Merseyrail station not too far away, Ormskirk, used to be a single track station with two railways terminating end on, the other railway in Kirkby's case being the Northern Rail line towards Wigan Wallgate. In October, the extension used up part of the Wigan line, doubling the track as far as Headbolt Lane, and the latter acting as the interchange with Northern Rail. But the new double track was left unelectrified (no third rail), a certain subset of the new Class 777 trains being able to use battery power to get to Headbolt Lane. Merseyrail have two west-facing platforms at Headbolt, with Northern having a third east-facing platform for their services. As the Northern branch was markedly different from the pre-October set-up, my Uber-Geekery, ah, compelled me to go forward one stop from Headbolt Lane to Rainford, a teeny little station with two platforms just long enough for two carriages.
On the way back, at Liverpool Lime Street, saw a Class 197 Transport for Wales unit awaiting return to Chester, and at London Euston, saw two brand new Class 805 high-speed trains in Avanti colours coupled together. And even closer to home, also checked out the new southwestern entrance to Stratford station that had only opened on Wednesday.
That to be honest is daft. Only a subset of trains can run there and they have to tow a set of heavy batteries all over liverpool because 3/4 of a mile of track at the end dosent have third rail electrification, because RAIB have got the vapours about third rail safety, despite it being deployed all over Southern England, Greater London and Liverpool for over a century.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Yes, quite. As ever, it's the cover up that kills you, not the "crime"
Many senior Dems KNEW Biden was incapable and probably demented (and therefore worsening, speedily, over time). They hid this from the voters, and - incredibly - tried to foist a SECOND Biden presidency on the electorate, hoping to hide this.... forever?
That cannot stand. Yes, Trump is the alternative, but this cannot stand. It is monstrously wrong
As you say, what happens when this finally impinges on voters? I don't think it has, yet. Most voters are quite dumb and unniterested in politics, it takes them a while to catch up. But when they do?? Could be painful
Look at how the British public punished the Conservatives for making Truss - the intellectual equivalent of a lettuce - PM.
Now imagine if, six months before GE 2024, Sunak started staring off into space randomly, confused Zelensky with Putin, and mixed up his own Chancellor with Rachel Reeves. Then in the first debate against Starmer, he just stood there blankly, rocking back and forth.
We might be sympathetic to Sunak, but we'd rightly damn the Tories for putting him up as a candidate in the first place, when mechanisms exist to remove him.
This is exactly the situation in America, and if people could remove the partisan blinkers from their eyes, they'd realise this isn't bad for Biden, it's bad for the Democrat brand itself.
Except Biden is currently polling at double the voteshare Truss was before she resigned
So it seems Ukraine may not be firing Storm Shadow missiles into Russia after all. Starmer may have rolled back on his initial decision. Why? I can only assume due to substantial pressure from the others (US and Germany?). The question is why. Why do those countries seem to be more fearful of escalation than other Nato members? Do they have intelligence that they aren't sharing with us? I suspect not. What escalation are they worried about? Don't they realise Russia is doing pretty much everything it can already?
One curious thing though. If Trump comes in and cuts off the aid, what will Ukraine do with all their remaining HIMARS and Storm Shadows? Fire them at Russia?
Yes, a rather disappointing situation. Storm Shadow is produced by MBDA which is 37.5% BAe / 37.5% Airbus / 15% Leonardo. BAe own 25% of Airbus, so they effectively control 46.875% of MBDA.
I guess it must be the French and Italians combined who are overriding the UK govt, rather than the US and Germany. But there are so many layers that it's a bit opaque - either way, it's an embarrassment for Starmer.
"As President Biden insists he will stay in the presidential race, Democrats are growing increasingly alarmed that his presence on the ticket is transforming the political map, turning light-blue states into contested battlegrounds.
Down-ballot Democrats, local elected officials and party strategists say Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia — all of which Mr. Biden won comfortably in 2020 — could be in play in November after his miserable debate performance last month."
NY Times
Yes, a few months ago despite worries over his age the hope was the old battleground states were going back into play. But can Biden win places like Arizona this time, which were so close last time? Doesn't look like it.
Biden lost to Trump on the Thursday evening of that debate. It's over. Maybe I am wrong but I think - brace!!
If he did Trump should be on 55-60% in polls now and heading for a landslide.
He isn't, he is still polling the 45% and a bit he got in 2016 and 2020. Independents are still not yet firmly in either camp. The conventions, Trump's sentencing and VP pick and the final debate if it goes ahead and how the economy looks in the autumn all remain factors
Biden is toast. Every appearence between now and the election will increase the realisation that he is not fit for office. Your faith in the polls is garbage as they are only valid until the next gaff.
If Biden is the candidate in November, Trump walks it and we are all screwed.
Sadly, I agree with most of that (we cannot exclude Trump, or his campaign, imploding before November).
It's like the Tories: For yonks, I've been saying Labour would win a humongous majority. The reason? The Tories were damaged by their own actions, there was no sign of them learning from their mistakes, and even if they did, the media and public were in no mood to listen. There was no way back, especially given the time available.
It's the same with Biden now. Even if his faculties were 100%, and far better than any PBers, any slight gaffe or mistake would be taken as evidence that he wasn't. The story is that he is incapable, and people will look for stuff to reinforce that story, not the contrary. Because "Man is fine" is not much of a story. "Man is mentally ill!" is much more of a story.
I posted this morning that I’m a few years older than Biden, and sound of mind, although not of body! No way nowadays would I commit myself to a long-term project although my wife assures me that I could.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about the Biden story, in that it isn't actually about Biden. It's about the people who have covered up his obvious decline.
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
Sure: but the Republicans covered up Reagan's dementia in his last years in office, but it didn't stop Bush following him as President. So, it might cut through. But I'm not sure it's that much of a killer line, once you have a compis mentis President. It also raises the question - given Trump's advancing years - of who might be pulling his strings as his cognitive impairment continues.
I think the difference between Reagan and Biden is that it's one thing to cover up for someone in the job while they're in decline, it's another thing to actively push for their re-election, while they're in decline.
Reagan was never going to serve past 1989. At the minute you have a lot of Dems still saying "Yep, Joe's the man to take us through to 2028, no cognitive decline, no sir-ee." If Biden does step down, then there are a lot of Dems left with egg on their faces.
The story isn't about Biden, it's about his party's failure to act decisively.
Sure, but that story mostly goes away the day that Biden is no longer the nominee. I mean, there will still be some people that really care, but how many of them will be undecided voters?
Also, government is delegation. How many actual decisions does the President make rather than his subordinates and cabinet ministers? It's like the first episode of Yes Prime Minister, when Jim discovers that now he's the boss, there's simply not much to do.
Strange because it is not the narrative. Of course Trump would still win on polling like that because of the advantage he has in the EC but it is seriously close. It would appear that 51% of Americans would rather have someone senile than Trump. We need more like 53% to come to the same conclusion.
So it seems Ukraine may not be firing Storm Shadow missiles into Russia after all. Starmer may have rolled back on his initial decision. Why? I can only assume due to substantial pressure from the others (US and Germany?). The question is why. Why do those countries seem to be more fearful of escalation than other Nato members? Do they have intelligence that they aren't sharing with us? I suspect not. What escalation are they worried about? Don't they realise Russia is doing pretty much everything it can already?
One curious thing though. If Trump comes in and cuts off the aid, what will Ukraine do with all their remaining HIMARS and Storm Shadows? Fire them at Russia?
Yes, a rather disappointing situation. Storm Shadow is produced by MBDA which is 37.5% BAe / 37.5% Airbus / 15% Leonardo. BAe own 25% of Airbus, so they effectively control 46.875% of MBDA.
I guess it must be the French and Italians combined who are overriding the UK govt, rather than the US and Germany. But there are so many layers that it's a bit opaque - either way, it's an embarrassment for Starmer.
Or... Starmer was not yet on top of his brief, and said something that was incorrect. Perfectly plausible, especially even for a lawyer.
Not much mention of prisons on here - I think what's going on is interesting. The immediate prisons crisis has led to, and given a justification for, today's announcement, but also reflects a change of tone. I think Labour is switching towards a model that seeks to reduce prison numbers in the longer term and focuses more on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The appointment of Timpson, and the announcement that 1,000 new probation officers are to be trained up, suggest this.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
It comes from having a PM who actually understands Criminal Justice.
And shows how poorly we have been served by a decade of Tabloid oriented populism.
Do you think that current sentences for crime are too harsh? A couple of days ago someone mentioned that in a gang murder he people holding down the victim got a year. I presume the one plunging the knife into the victim got longer.
That was me - a couple of juveniles involved in a post code stabbing.
It was being discussed on a legal blog, years back when it happened.
Someone was hand wringing about ruining their lives.
A rather more harden legal type observed that with their rep as murderers their job prospects in the drug trade were bright.
Come to think of it, there was that chap who ran a chunk of the Oxford “business” for many years on his rep from a manslaughter conviction. No names.. but a droopy eyelid for those who might remember?
Essentially the Tories need to get back to being Conservatives. If voters want the LDs they will vote LD, if voters want Reform they will vote Reform.
The Tories need to retain a distinctive Tory and conservative identity as their best chance to retain and increase support, especially if the Labour government loses popularity
As I don't support either the Conservatives or Reform, I imagine my view doesn't count for much in this.
From the outside, however, I've always seen a huge paradox in Reform - the leadership (Farage, Tice) are Thatcherites supporting lower taxes especially (I suspect) for the wealthy and arguing the benefits of trickledown. The Reform voter set is more complex and nuanced - there will be some who think that way but my feeling is many want higher spending but they want it in WWC areas rather than on "migrants". Both sides of the Reform circle can agree on the need to reduce immigration but that's more about tightening the rules of entry for the 96% legal migration rather than worrying about the 4% illegal. Beyond that, and a general cultural conservatism,. I don't see much to hold Reform together.
As for the Conservative Party, the key has to be to return to the days of sound fiscal management. Eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt (and hoping economic growth and lower interest rates will alleviate the debt repayments). The elephant in the room is how do you return the public finances to surplus (or near) given the huge pressures on Services (NHS, education, defence, prisons to name but four)? Osborne worked on £5 of spending cuts for every £1 of tax rises - now, a future Conservative Shadow CoE might play a similar game or they might take a long look at tax rates and allowances.
The more fundamental problem is that there is no role in modern Britain for a low tax, small state party. Too many people are dependent - because they are too old, sick, poorly paid, overburdened by ridiculous housing costs, or some combination of these things - for any solution that doesn't involve colossal spending on health and social security to fly. The money has to come from somewhere, and that, primarily, means screwing it out of the surviving cohort of working age taxpayers.
I have news for you. The surviving cohort of Working age taxpayers have noticed and are acting accordingly by.
1) Going part time to keep below cliff edge tax thresholds or turning down overtime for same reason.
2) Retiring early.
3) Inventing mental heslth or back problems and going on benefits (need to be in social housing, have no savings and no prospect of earning much more than median wage for this to work)
4) Packing up full tjme work and working 16 hours a week stacking shelves on minimum wage with universal credit making up nearly all the difference (need kids for this to work - see (3) when they turn 18)
The end result will be national bankruptcy and whichever party is in power becoming overnight a small state low tax party on instruction from the IMF.
Meeting of Congressional Hispanic Caucus goes badly
Lakshya Jain @lxeagle17 > Biden shows up 1 hour late > Biden tries to open the floor to more questions, but is denied > MGP/Vasquez raise hands, have their hands lowered by organizers > Levin says Biden needs to step down, Biden responds > Biden says he has time for more qs, chair ends meeting
Not much mention of prisons on here - I think what's going on is interesting. The immediate prisons crisis has led to, and given a justification for, today's announcement, but also reflects a change of tone. I think Labour is switching towards a model that seeks to reduce prison numbers in the longer term and focuses more on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. The appointment of Timpson, and the announcement that 1,000 new probation officers are to be trained up, suggest this.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
It comes from having a PM who actually understands Criminal Justice.
And shows how poorly we have been served by a decade of Tabloid oriented populism.
SKS may be a good thing or a bad one, who knows? But pretending he is a reversion to the blessed days of st tony Blair is just silly. The indeterminate sentences introduced by lab last time round were purely tabloid driven and were rightly called by a supreme court judge “the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system”. Nothing in the past decade comes close.
Strange because it is not the narrative. Of course Trump would still win on polling like that because of the advantage he has in the EC but it is seriously close. It would appear that 51% of Americans would rather have someone senile than Trump. We need more like 53% to come to the same conclusion.
To bring serious pressure on the jokers, er, justices of the Supreme Court it would need to be closer to 60% with unfortunate down-ballot effects for the eleven Republican senate seats being contested.
Elon Musk's habit of lying is hardly debatable, let alone actionable.
Whereas accusing his business competitors of an "illegal deal" . . .
Coincidentally enough, Twitter (and other places...) are quite alive today with allegations that Twitter is deleting comments linking Musk and Epstein...
I always liked the way that Musk shut down the account of the person who used publicly available information to track his jet. A true free speech champion there.
Or, indeed, the way he sued Media Matters over their research.
Basically, like a lot of very rich people (of all political hues), he's turned into a bit of a bullying asshole.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Henry Ford.
Elon Musk is 21st-century version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
Builder of overpriced vehicles that stimulated development but ultimately were costly failures?
Mad bully whose staff all loathed him?
Those could work.
I don't see the amazing civil engineering achievements that made up for Brunel's catastrophes in shipping and locomotives though.
Nor do I see Musk as a good family man or a generous friend.
I used to see Musk as a modern-day IKB, and even said so. There are numerous similarities.
Brunel had an unfortunate tendency to let his ambition and imagination outrun both the available technology and his investors' financial resources.
The atmospheric railway, iron hulled ships with screws, gyro compasses, shore tenders, bogie driving wheels, all could be justified and indeed in various guises all have been successful with modern materials. Just as the 7 foot gauge was in isolation a brilliant idea.
But - they didn't work and cost a fortune.
Now, Musk has made a success of Tesla a la the 7 foot gauge. It's bold, exciting and cool so people flock to it. And like the Great Britain, it will probably drive automotive development in ways that would not otherwise have happened.
But - most of his other ideas don't work and cost a fortune.
At least Brunel had reasons to think his ideas would work (even the atmospheric railway had worked in Ireland and ?Croydon?, at a smaller scale.
The same cannot be said for some of Musk's ideas. Even ones he has had people paying millions for, like autonomous cars. Which still are not doing things he was promising for seven or more years ago.
Thinks like Hyperloop are just a barmy idea, and the accusation is he proposed it just to kill off high-speed rail in California. (Note: some people, even intelligent people on here, said we should scrap HS2 and build a hyperloop instead.)
Strange because it is not the narrative. Of course Trump would still win on polling like that because of the advantage he has in the EC but it is seriously close. It would appear that 51% of Americans would rather have someone senile than Trump. We need more like 53% to come to the same conclusion.
Ummm...if they get Trump, they are getting someone senile.
The choice is not about senility, it's about what form of it they want. Do they want an inoffensive old dodderer surrounded by mostly competent people who is not planning to rape his daughter or overthrow the Constitution, or a convicted criminal and known traitor who surrounds himself with people almost as mad as he is?
This is why while neither of them should be running, Biden is still the likelier victor.
Comments
One curious thing though. If Trump comes in and cuts off the aid, what will Ukraine do with all their remaining HIMARS and Storm Shadows? Fire them at Russia?
I'm now having visions of Suella and Nige as a latter day version of David Steel and David Owen. Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government. LOL.
Warts and all, I'd quite like a few more Musks.
There. That's the comment. That's it
Sadly very true.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/15/elon-musk-british-diver-thai-cave-rescue-pedo-twitter
(Yes, I know he got away with it but that's beside the point.)
St Agatha's Church, Easby, nr. Richmond (Yorks).
Set in the grounds of a ruined convent, on a Saxon floor plan, with genuine surviving 12th century wall paintings.
Cost - £1 donation requested for the car park.
Truly amazing place.
In the case of the private jet tracker, it was just simple republishing of publicly available information.
In the case of Media Matters, it was a factual description of something they had done on Twitter, and the results they obtained.
And, for what it's worth, we have a system designed to prevent against defamation, which is the libel laws. But, of course, if no one knows who you are, then what protection does anyone have against anonymous defamation? Which is - of course - an issue that all the online platforms have.
Personally I welcome this. It's a refreshing, and progressive, change from the 'lock them all up' rhetoric that both major parties have campaigned on in recent times. It's also refreshing that the government is not paying heed to the inevitable cries of being soft on crime from the tabloids.
Trump is just the bully in the care home (apologies to his prior opponents).
https://x.com/Phillip_Blond/status/1811778648392814820
He's clearly not the man he used to be, and there's also a growing body of evidence that senior democrats have been doing their best to hide that fact from the public and their own party over the last few months. That's the story.
If Biden stays, then Trump has his attack line. "Dementia Joe" or something equally as ugly.
If Biden goes, then his attack line is almost as simple. The Dems conspired to keep this man president, even knowing he was losing his faculties. Can you trust them now?
It’s complicated. The Tebbit test is far too simplistic, and rather divisive.
Mad bully whose staff all loathed him?
Those could work.
I don't see the amazing civil engineering achievements that made up for Brunel's catastrophes in shipping and locomotives though.
Nor do I see Musk as a good family man or a generous friend.
But he has also - like Henry Ford - gone slightly mad. And he's made the mistake of many successful people, in assuming that because he's quite good at x and y, that he must know everything about a, b, and c.
Neither will be pdrticularly palatable to the electorate and I suspect Reform will stand a much better chance of winning seats of Labour in the north than the Tories have of winning seats off Labour and in particular the Libdems.
I'm beginning to think they are done.
Reagan was never going to serve past 1989. At the minute you have a lot of Dems still saying "Yep, Joe's the man to take us through to 2028, no cognitive decline, no sir-ee." If Biden does step down, then there are a lot of Dems left with egg on their faces.
The story isn't about Biden, it's about his party's failure to act decisively.
Contraception is the big one - even if you do take a day off to get an NHS GP appointment, they won't give you anything other than the crappy combined pill unless you tell them you're a sex worker (in which case there'd be lots of very judge-y follow-up questions). You can supposedly now get Evra patches or Nuvarings for £40/month from big chemists, but Implanon/Nexplanon still needs you to lie about being a sex worker, or go abroad.
And not sure that "good family man" or "a generous friend" is truer of HF than of EM?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
Many senior Dems KNEW Biden was incapable and probably demented (and therefore worsening, speedily, over time). They hid this from the voters, and - incredibly - tried to foist a SECOND Biden presidency on the electorate, hoping to hide this.... forever?
That cannot stand. Yes, Trump is the alternative, but this cannot stand. It is monstrously wrong
As you say, what happens when this finally impinges on voters? I don't think it has, yet. Most voters are quite dumb and unniterested in politics, it takes them a while to catch up. But when they do?? Could be painful
Also, government is delegation. How many actual decisions does the President make rather than his subordinates and cabinet ministers? It's like the first episode of Yes Prime Minister, when Jim discovers that now he's the boss, there's simply not much to do.
Meanwhile the country needs a functioning opposition and not a bunch of idiots fighting the last war.
Then there is effectively no way to identify you.
Conservatives can't compete on the same ground of cultural conservatism and spending as Reform or a Wagenknecht-style party nor should they play on the same tax raising ground.
Conservatives should have the fundamental principle of sound fiscal management - that doesn't preclude tax rises when necessary but works to the ideal of lowering taxes when possible and responsible. How that is balanced with the efficient and effective provision of public services is the detail but the aim has to be to return the public finances to surplus and begin to reduce the overall debt (and hope growth and interest rates help).
As an aside, I see the benefit of borrowing to fund major capital infrastructure projects and within a reasonable fiscal envelope, I'd like to see more of that as a mechanism for stimulating growth.
Just to quote those tweets, "Prominent Democrats interviewed by CNN blamed the president's inner circle for keeping Biden away from unscripted settings and hiding his decline."; "Back in Washington, there have been clear signs throughout the his term of the president being increasingly stage managed"".
How can you trust people who knowingly put someone they know isn't up to the job up for re-election?
To be fair, the same is true of the GOP putting Trump back up for re-election.
But the Dems can no longer claim the high ground.
If, as I expect, the Dems replace Biden Trump will lose. Any talk of a Biden dementia cover-up will be a footnote to history at best.
Now, sadly, he's much more like Henry Ford.
(Having said that; though I like Brunel, he is not quite the genius-hero he is made out to be nowadays. Some of the obituaries when he died were somewhat scathing. e.g. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/archive/september-1859-brunels-obituary/)
A few weeks ago I spent almost 10hrs on the phone to get it sorted. I've since switched to getting my prescription privately at a few clicks of a button.
I have a very forgiving line manager. I'd hate to imagine trying to navigate this if your work life couldn't accommodate spending an hour+ on hold to your GP several days in a row.
Against Biden though even if Trump narrowly won the popular vote it is not impossible Biden could win the EC, holding Wisconsin, Michigan and his home state of PA and maybe even Georgia (albeit likely losing Arizona and Nevada). Biden polls better in the RCP average in Wisconsin and Michigan for example now than he does nationally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfhSU9Kl94w
George Osborne & Ed Balls discuss the leadership election on their Political Currency podcast.
Basically, Osborne thinks it may be a long contest with James Cleverly as possible interim leader if Rishi wants to get out before the budget. None of the likely candidates has any experience of Opposition. He thinks the parliamentary party is more centrist than right wing, and cautions that the last three elections in Opposition were won by outsiders (Hague, IDS and Cameron). He also suggests MPs might send only one name to be approved by the members.
You'd need to judge the ratio of insight to hopecasting for yourself.
And shows how poorly we have been served by a decade of Tabloid oriented populism.
Kirkby, like another Merseyrail station not too far away, Ormskirk, used to be a single track station with two railways terminating end on, the other railway in Kirkby's case being the Northern Rail line towards Wigan Wallgate. In October, the extension used up part of the Wigan line, doubling the track as far as Headbolt Lane, and the latter acting as the interchange with Northern Rail. But the new double track was left unelectrified (no third rail), a certain subset of the new Class 777 trains being able to use battery power to get to Headbolt Lane. Merseyrail have two west-facing platforms at Headbolt, with Northern having a third east-facing platform for their services. As the Northern branch was markedly different from the pre-October set-up, my Uber-Geekery, ah, compelled me to go forward one stop from Headbolt Lane to Rainford, a teeny little station with two platforms just long enough for two carriages.
On the way back, at Liverpool Lime Street, saw a Class 197 Transport for Wales unit awaiting return to Chester, and at London Euston, saw two brand new Class 805 high-speed trains in Avanti colours coupled together. And even closer to home, also checked out the new southwestern entrance to Stratford station that had only opened on Wednesday.
The atmospheric railway, iron hulled ships with screws, gyro compasses, shore tenders, bogie driving wheels, all could be justified and indeed in various guises all have been successful with modern materials. Just as the 7 foot gauge was in isolation a brilliant idea.
But - they didn't work and cost a fortune.
Now, Musk has made a success of Tesla a la the 7 foot gauge. It's bold, exciting and cool so people flock to it. And like the Great Britain, it will probably drive automotive development in ways that would not otherwise have happened.
But - most of his other ideas don't work and cost a fortune.
Personally, I would avoid using Tor to access normal web services because so many of the exit nodes appear to be sponsored by state security agencies. It might be okay, but I don't see how it buys you much more than trad TLS 1.3
Using TOR to post anonymously is an interesting one. Yes possible perhaps to drop the site in it by spouting defamations or copyright breaches without TSE without TSE getting you, but if you are using TOR, in the UK at least, I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if your ISP and GCHQ have not flagged you to police Drugs and Pedo squads in short order, which possibly is more detrimental to you than annoying TSE.
PS - forget fake email addresses. You cant post until you have received an email from Vanilla and responded.
You can't post if you use a valid gmail address to register either, becsuse the email Vanilla send out to validate it has your (RCS) name and email address on it so gmail blocks it under their spoofing protocols because it manifestly is from?Vanilla not you at Gmail.
Which is why I am @misterbedfordshire and @mrbedfordshire hasn't posted yet.
"Many blessings,
[x]"
Which is certainly unusual. What am I supposed to deduce from this?
A House Democrat says a heavyweight group of “super friends” is being assembled to head to the White House and tell Biden it’s time to go.
The main aim of Government must, therefore, be to try to ensure that we have high taxes and good public services, not high taxes and shit public services as was the case under the last lot. This entails maximising efficiency, minimising costs, and ensuring that the economy operates more equitably and isn't merely an engine for transmitting what's left of the nation's wealth upwards from the poor to the rich. Fantasy tax cuts or, for that matter, fantasy spending are policies for fringe parties like Reform and the Greens that don't have to worry about putting them into practice. We all saw what happened when such delusions took hold of a governing party from the example of the Truss ministry.
What the Tories need to win again is to desist from indulging in fantasy, wait for Labour to begin to make mistakes, and present a case that they have changed and can do the donkey work of improving the functioning of the state and economic outcomes better than the incumbents. It's boring, unglamorous and doesn't entail exposing everyone except pensioners to the icy blast of globalisation (for which, read, being bent over and buggered by rotten employers and various "investors" all over again.) It also means finally accepting that Saint Margaret didn't get absolutely everything right and the Eighties ain't coming back. Do they want to hear any if this? What do we all think?
Satisfied ?
Proper Darwin Award material.
Once you have an anonymous internet connection, then it's a pot of piss to get yourself a disposable email address you can respond with.
It's not very difficult to be anonymous on the Internet.
* Of course, given there are around 2 million simultaneous Tor nodes at any given moment in time, then there are going to be hundreds of thousands of Tor users in the UK in any given month. Some will be having affairs. Some will be browsing child porn. Some will be buying illegal drugs. And some will be using to defame people anonymously on the Internet.
Now imagine if, six months before GE 2024, Sunak started staring off into space randomly, confused Zelensky with Putin, and mixed up his own Chancellor with Rachel Reeves. Then in the first debate against Starmer, he just stood there blankly, rocking back and forth.
We might be sympathetic to Sunak, but we'd rightly damn the Tories for putting him up as a candidate in the first place, when mechanisms exist to remove him.
This is exactly the situation in America, and if people could remove the partisan blinkers from their eyes, they'd realise this isn't bad for Biden, it's bad for the Democrat brand itself.
But then, slimy bastards like him often get away with it, don't they?
Thank God the British system is so much better…..
Another example of how regulation is making everything too expensive & complex, as pointed out by @Malmesbury in https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/02/04/the-state-of-process-the-process-state/
I guess it must be the French and Italians combined who are overriding the UK govt, rather than the US and Germany. But there are so many layers that it's a bit opaque - either way, it's an embarrassment for Starmer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhBd0bmzCns
Strange because it is not the narrative. Of course Trump would still win on polling like that because of the advantage he has in the EC but it is seriously close. It would appear that 51% of Americans would rather have someone senile than Trump. We need more like 53% to come to the same conclusion.
Whatever, it's a bit of a mistake.
It was being discussed on a legal blog, years back when it happened.
Someone was hand wringing about ruining their lives.
A rather more harden legal type observed that with their rep as murderers their job prospects in the drug trade were bright.
Come to think of it, there was that chap who ran a chunk of the Oxford “business” for many years on his rep from a manslaughter conviction. No names.. but a droopy eyelid for those who might remember?
1) Going part time to keep below cliff edge tax thresholds or turning down overtime for same reason.
2) Retiring early.
3) Inventing mental heslth or back problems and going on benefits (need to be in social housing, have no savings and no prospect of earning much more than median wage for this to work)
4) Packing up full tjme work and working 16 hours a week stacking shelves on minimum wage with universal credit making up nearly all the difference (need kids for this to work - see (3) when they turn 18)
The end result will be national bankruptcy and whichever party is in power becoming overnight a small state low tax party on instruction from the IMF.
Lakshya Jain
@lxeagle17
> Biden shows up 1 hour late
> Biden tries to open the floor to more questions, but is denied
> MGP/Vasquez raise hands, have their hands lowered by organizers
> Levin says Biden needs to step down, Biden responds
> Biden says he has time for more qs, chair ends meeting
Yeesh
Quote
Reese Gorman
The same cannot be said for some of Musk's ideas. Even ones he has had people paying millions for, like autonomous cars. Which still are not doing things he was promising for seven or more years ago.
Thinks like Hyperloop are just a barmy idea, and the accusation is he proposed it just to kill off high-speed rail in California. (Note: some people, even intelligent people on here, said we should scrap HS2 and build a hyperloop instead.)
Like, I love quail... but that's a starter, not a meal!
The choice is not about senility, it's about what form of it they want. Do they want an inoffensive old dodderer surrounded by mostly competent people who is not planning to rape his daughter or overthrow the Constitution, or a convicted criminal and known traitor who surrounds himself with people almost as mad as he is?
This is why while neither of them should be running, Biden is still the likelier victor.