Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
It’s going to be Jenrick. He can make the kids cry so maybe he can make SKS cry too. Scrub those pictures of D:Ream off the walls.
He looks set to be the last right-winger standing (Patel seems to be going nowhere and Badenoch gets people's backs up) so he probably wins with the membership.
But he is the embodiment of "we were right and the electorate were wrong."
Jenrick resigned from the Government on principle. Badenoch, Stride and Cleverly goverened within it, and the latter two have as far as I have a pretty Piaf-like approach to it all. So I'm pretty baffled as to why you've alighted on Jenrick as the unrepentant one.
“Leaning heavily into the idea that an omelette requires breaking a few eggs, the prime minister now scores well on competence and decisiveness. However, Starmer has also taken huge hits on being in touch (from a net score of +4 in June to -14 now), on being likeable (-1 to -12), and on being trustworthy (-3 to -11).
This seems likely to store up problems for the government even in their first few months, unless they get better at communicating their long-term strategy. Things will only get harder once a new Conservative leader is ready to benefit from the unpopular decisions all governments have to”
It’s going to be Jenrick. He can make the kids cry so maybe he can make SKS cry too. Scrub those pictures of D:Ream off the walls.
He looks set to be the last right-winger standing (Patel seems to be going nowhere and Badenoch gets people's backs up) so he probably wins with the membership.
But he is the embodiment of "we were right and the electorate were wrong."
Jenrick resigned from the Government on principle. Badenoch, Stride and Cleverly goverened within it, and the latter two have as far as I have a pretty Piaf-like approach to it all. So I'm pretty baffled as to why you've alighted on Jenrick as the unrepentant one.
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
I was always amused when I lived there by the amount of people coming for business who would be “shocked” to discover that they had booked a hotel in the Paquis, the red light district, of Geneva. Poor innocents who hadn’t at all googled anything about where their hotel was.
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
You didn’t fancy fish for breakfast?
There are only two things that smell of fish. One is fish.
“Leaning heavily into the idea that an omelette requires breaking a few eggs, the prime minister now scores well on competence and decisiveness. However, Starmer has also taken huge hits on being in touch (from a net score of +4 in June to -14 now), on being likeable (-1 to -12), and on being trustworthy (-3 to -11).
This seems likely to store up problems for the government even in their first few months, unless they get better at communicating their long-term strategy. Things will only get harder once a new Conservative leader is ready to benefit from the unpopular decisions all governments have to”
Oh dear what a shame etc
He will start worrying about his ratings around 2027.
“Leaning heavily into the idea that an omelette requires breaking a few eggs, the prime minister now scores well on competence and decisiveness. However, Starmer has also taken huge hits on being in touch (from a net score of +4 in June to -14 now), on being likeable (-1 to -12), and on being trustworthy (-3 to -11).
This seems likely to store up problems for the government even in their first few months, unless they get better at communicating their long-term strategy. Things will only get harder once a new Conservative leader is ready to benefit from the unpopular decisions all governments have to”
Oh dear what a shame etc
He will start worrying about his ratings around 2027.
No, he will be worried now. First impressions last. You never get a second chance etc
The right wing press has done a brilliant job of making him out as an unlikeable, puritanical little knob of a man, ably assisted - it has to be said - by Sir Keir Starmer
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Because the first 100 days REALLY matter. All politicians know this. That’s when you establish your brand, your persona, your likelihood of succeeding
If you immediately go into freefall that’s really bad. And that’s what’s happening to Starmer - as it happened to about 398 Tory PMs before him
They never recovered because recovering is hard
There are two telling contrasts. Blair - whose polling (IIRC) actually went UP after his election. And thatcher who IIRC managed to get over a bad start with the help of the Falklands (something of a miracle)
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
It’s going to be Jenrick. He can make the kids cry so maybe he can make SKS cry too. Scrub those pictures of D:Ream off the walls.
He looks set to be the last right-winger standing (Patel seems to be going nowhere and Badenoch gets people's backs up) so he probably wins with the membership.
But he is the embodiment of "we were right and the electorate were wrong."
Jenrick resigned from the Government on principle. Badenoch, Stride and Cleverly goverened within it, and the latter two have as far as I have a pretty Piaf-like approach to it all. So I'm pretty baffled as to why you've alighted on Jenrick as the unrepentant one.
Since you ask, it's the combination of mostly the personal tawdriness, partly the continued defence of the Rwanda blag. But obviously mileages vary.
And in response to your previous comment, from my point of view it's not about right or centre so much as accepting or denying arithmetic. If a politician wishes to say "government should stop doing X, it will save the state Y and enable Z in tax cuts", fine. What I have a major beef with is when X and Y aren't said at all. Or even when Y and Z are said, without X. Which was basically the Hunt-Sunak strategy over the last nine months or so.
Talking of spending commitments, who should I be making the cheque out to for living in your head? It doesn't feel right to be doing so rent-free.
It’s going to be Jenrick. He can make the kids cry so maybe he can make SKS cry too. Scrub those pictures of D:Ream off the walls.
He looks set to be the last right-winger standing (Patel seems to be going nowhere and Badenoch gets people's backs up) so he probably wins with the membership.
But he is the embodiment of "we were right and the electorate were wrong."
Jenrick resigned from the Government on principle. Badenoch, Stride and Cleverly goverened within it, and the latter two have as far as I have a pretty Piaf-like approach to it all. So I'm pretty baffled as to why you've alighted on Jenrick as the unrepentant one.
He resigned from the government on the principle of positioning himself for the leadership.
They don’t trust him, they don’t like him, they think he’s out of touch. They think he’s a lying twat
Still, thank god Keir Starmer has the humourous charisma that will win people back
Just imagine voting for that twat.
Those people are so fucking dense they should never comment on politics or anything else ever again.
Within a year Starmer’s going to be down at Sunak or even Truss like levels of unpopularity
In which case the next Conservative leader, whoever they are, should have rather more chance of regular poll leads against misery guts Sir Keir than poor William Hague did against St Tony as he walked on water for years after his 1997 landslide. Of course the fact Blair ensured Brown did not raise many taxes and kept the unions under control also helped and it was before he really opened the floodgates to immigration post 2004 and EU expansion
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Am I noticing a concept that could be entitled 'Keir Derangement Syndrome'?
If so, it would appear that it is shared by a large proportion of British voters
Nope only a subset on here. Most people don't give him a second thought. We have 4 - 5 years for an accumulation of Labour cock ups and scandals. Just be patient.
Riddle me this: bar staff will be expected to police the new no smoking in pub gardens but retail staff - as was discussed at length earlier - are told not to get involved and stop any shop lifting or intervene in any way.
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
You didn’t fancy fish for breakfast?
There are only two things that smell of fish. One is fish.
Am I noticing a concept that could be entitled 'Keir Derangement Syndrome'?
If so, it would appear that it is shared by a large proportion of British voters
Nope only a subset on here. Most people don't give him a second thought. We have 4 - 5 years for an accumulation of Labour cock ups and scandals. Just be patient.
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
You didn’t fancy fish for breakfast?
There are only two things that smell of fish. One is fish.
Yes, the puss from my abdominal abscess smelt like rotting fish.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 · 3h The graveyards of British politics are filled with people who underestimated Keir Starmer
“Leaning heavily into the idea that an omelette requires breaking a few eggs, the prime minister now scores well on competence and decisiveness. However, Starmer has also taken huge hits on being in touch (from a net score of +4 in June to -14 now), on being likeable (-1 to -12), and on being trustworthy (-3 to -11).
This seems likely to store up problems for the government even in their first few months, unless they get better at communicating their long-term strategy. Things will only get harder once a new Conservative leader is ready to benefit from the unpopular decisions all governments have to”
Oh dear what a shame etc
He will start worrying about his ratings around 2027.
No, he will be worried now. First impressions last. You never get a second chance etc
The right wing press has done a brilliant job of making him out as an unlikeable, puritanical little knob of a man, ably assisted - it has to be said - by Sir Keir Starmer
What's funny is the defensiveness and dismissiveness we're already getting about plummeting ratings.
He was elected, like, last month. And he still hasn't done 8 weeks in the job.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
You didn’t fancy fish for breakfast?
There are only two things that smell of fish. One is fish.
Yes, the puss from my abdominal abscess smelt like rotting fish.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
Big picture is that, unless Starmer screws up massively (always possible), Conservatives are going to struggle for as long as their leader can't say that 2019-24 was nothing to do with them.
Riddle me this: bar staff will be expected to police the new no smoking in pub gardens but retail staff - as was discussed at length earlier - are told not to get involved and stop any shop lifting or intervene in any way.
I got wonderfully told off for vaping on a terrace earlier (hadn’t seen the sign two feet away). Bar manager just said calmly, after a friendly hello “could I draw your attention to the sign to your left”. I apologised profusely and he moved me to a table six feet away where I proceeded to blow vape smoke all over the old table.
There will be twats who get angry but most people will just move somewhere else, smoke then go back to where they were.
When you are in a lub you are generally hoping to stay there for a while so will listen to staff, a shop less so.
Riddle me this: bar staff will be expected to police the new no smoking in pub gardens but retail staff - as was discussed at length earlier - are told not to get involved and stop any shop lifting or intervene in any way.
Who ‘policed’ the ban on smoking inside pubs? Not that different.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 · 3h The graveyards of British politics are filled with people who underestimated Keir Starmer
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
Hague's misfortune was to be up against Blair in his prime.
If Hague had backed Howard for leader, which tactically he should have done in 1997, then Howard would have suffered the landslide defeat in 2001. Hague could then have taken the leadership, not IDS and would have made gains in 2005 and could have stayed leader in 2010 and likely beaten Brown.
I cannot stop laughing at Keir Starmer talking with Olaf Scholz about how to defeat the far right, when the SPD are about to be obliterated by the 'far right' AFD, polling in single figures in large parts of Germany. The labour party seem destined to suffer the exact same fate as the mainstream social democratic parties around Europe.
Comfort zone.
This people don't think and nor do they want to think.
Must admit that Donad Trump and his hirlings have outdone themselves THIS time.
That is, going into and no doubt through the (at least) 3-day Labor Day weekend in the USA, the TOP political story is their conduct unbecoming at Arlington National Cemetery.
At least, when it comes to conduct unbecoming at a war cemetery, at least the Trump Campaign believes in Truth in advertising. Social . . . or sociopathic*?
* note that yours truly is a psephologist NOT a psychiatrist hence NO violation of the Goldwater Rule.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 · 3h The graveyards of British politics are filled with people who underestimated Keir Starmer
That must be the world’s smallest graveyard. More of a micro-mortuary really. Because starmer is the man who was OVER estimated by the polls to an epochal extent and actually got about as many votes as ed Miliband in 2015
Am I noticing a concept that could be entitled 'Keir Derangement Syndrome'?
It's been interesting watching some of the Conservatives on here adapt to life in Opposition.
There are those whose hostility to Labour in any form means they were critics from round about Admiralty Arch on the morning of July 5th. Within that group you have those who claim to have voted Labour, those who were deeply critical of Rishi Sunak and those who praised him right up to the end. The only thing they share is an almost visceral hostility to Labour in Government.
There are others who were noticeably absent or reticent about criticising the last months of the Sunak Government but as soon as Starmer became Prime Minister, were quickly into stride shouting their hostility and opposition to anything and everything.
I shouldn't make the assumption hostility to Labour equates to a desire to see the Conservatives back in office - we are in a multi-polar political environment at the moment and I can imagine plenty of those who voted Reform or Lib Dem or Green or didn't vote at all being less than happy with how the new Government has begun its life.
I'm reminded it's a marathon not a sprint - there might not be another General Election until the spring of 2029 and a lot will happen between now and then.
As someone who didn't vote Labour either, but understands how politics works, it's clear Starmer wouldn't be the first Prime Minister who sought to get the pain done and dusted quickly. I suspect the next 18-24 months will be very uncomfortable for the Government and its supporters - those with longer memories will recall the depth of the hole the Thatcher Government was in by the summer and autumn of 1981.
There are two parts to this - first, the Government has to deal not just with the failures but the indecisions of the predecessor administrations in areas such as prison capacity, immigration and housing/homelessness. Second, it has to restore a degree of faith in Government and the political process so that turnout numbers such as we saw in July aren't repeated next time.
It’s going to be Jenrick. He can make the kids cry so maybe he can make SKS cry too. Scrub those pictures of D:Ream off the walls.
He looks set to be the last right-winger standing (Patel seems to be going nowhere and Badenoch gets people's backs up) so he probably wins with the membership.
But he is the embodiment of "we were right and the electorate were wrong."
Jenrick resigned from the Government on principle. Badenoch, Stride and Cleverly goverened within it, and the latter two have as far as I have a pretty Piaf-like approach to it all. So I'm pretty baffled as to why you've alighted on Jenrick as the unrepentant one.
Since you ask, it's the combination of mostly the personal tawdriness, partly the continued defence of the Rwanda blag. But obviously mileages vary.
And in response to your previous comment, from my point of view it's not about right or centre so much as accepting or denying arithmetic. If a politician wishes to say "government should stop doing X, it will save the state Y and enable Z in tax cuts", fine. What I have a major beef with is when X and Y aren't said at all. Or even when Y and Z are said, without X. Which was basically the Hunt-Sunak strategy over the last nine months or so.
Talking of spending commitments, who should I be making the cheque out to for living in your head? It doesn't feel right to be doing so rent-free.
I'm lost - I responded to two of your points with fairly inoffensive counter-arguments - is that me being fixated on you? More than happy to ignore your posts if you'd prefer?
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 · 3h The graveyards of British politics are filled with people who underestimated Keir Starmer
That must be the world’s smallest graveyard. More of a micro-mortuary really. Because starmer is the man who was OVER estimated by the polls to an epochal extent and actually got about as many votes as ed Miliband in 2015
Yeh but they were in the right places under his watch.
Am I noticing a concept that could be entitled 'Keir Derangement Syndrome'?
I think that expression was invented by Trump supporters? It doesn't really work. If someone points out that Keir is an empty careerist suit, the robust answer is to list his principal non empty careerist suit achievements, 1-20. The dickless answer is Oooh, Keir Derangement Syndrome.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
Must admit that Donad Trump and his hirlings have outdone themselves THIS time.
That is, going into and no doubt through the (at least) 3-day Labor Day weekend in the USA, the TOP political story is their conduct unbecoming at Arlington National Cemetery.
At least, when it comes to conduct unbecoming at a war cemetery, at least the Trump Campaign believes in Truth in advertising. Social . . . or sociopathic*?
* note that yours truly is a psephologist NOT a psychiatrist hence NO violation of the Goldwater Rule.
But, and this is really important, it's not his fault.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
Hague's misfortune was to be up against Blair in his prime.
If Hague had backed Howard for leader, which tactically he should have done in 1997, then Howard would have suffered the landslide defeat in 2001. Hague could then have taken the leadership, not IDS and would have made gains in 2005 and could have stayed leader in 2010 and likely beaten Brown.
Starmer is more Brown than Blair
There is this disconnect between the remaining 3 Tories and reality.
Brown lost. Blair won a majority of 704. As did Starmer.
However bad you and CR and Leon think Starmer is, he won. Massively.
You didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him. Two thirds of the electorate didn't vote for him. But the shitbox electoral system you support gave him a majority of 704, so...
Keir Starmer’s net approval ratings are -13%, down 6 points from -7 at a fortnight ago and down a hefty 32 points from +19% in his first approval rating as prime minister.
Must admit that Donad Trump and his hirlings have outdone themselves THIS time.
That is, going into and no doubt through the (at least) 3-day Labor Day weekend in the USA, the TOP political story is their conduct unbecoming at Arlington National Cemetery.
At least, when it comes to conduct unbecoming at a war cemetery, at least the Trump Campaign believes in Truth in advertising. Social . . . or sociopathic*?
* note that yours truly is a psephologist NOT a psychiatrist hence NO violation of the Goldwater Rule.
But, and this is really important, it's not his fault.
It is someone else's.
Won’t make a difference to his moronic supporters . He was given a pass on his disgraceful comments in 2016 and the inbred trailer trash will continue to worship the stain on humanity .
Latest news flash from the (clearly deeply Anglophobic) New York Times:
NYT - Older Adults Do Not Benefit From Moderate Drinking, Large Study Finds
Virtually any amount increased the risk for cancer, and there were no heart benefits, the researchers reported.
Even light drinking was associated with an increase in cancer deaths among older adults in Britain, researchers reported on Monday in a large study. But the risk was accentuated primarily in those who had existing health problems or who lived in low-income areas.
The study, which tracked 135,103 adults aged 60 and older for 12 years, also punctures the long-held belief that light or moderate alcohol consumption is good for the heart.
The researchers found no reduction in heart disease deaths among light or moderate drinkers, regardless of this health or socioeconomic status, when compared with occasional drinkers.
The study defined light drinking as a mean alcohol intake of up to 20 grams a day for men and up to 10 grams daily for women. . . .
Bastards
IIRC the benefits of light and moderate drinking are associated more with red wine than other booze, so perhaps the study needs more nuance (or at least the reporting of it)?
From deeper down in the NYT report
. . . The new study found that while older adults who were light drinkers faced higher risks of dying if they had health-related or socioeconomic risk factors, drinking mostly wine and drinking only with meals moderated the risk, particularly of death from cancer.
The reasons were not entirely clear, Dr. Ortolá said. But the reduction may be because of slower alcohol absorption, or it might reflect other healthy choices from these people.
It also wasn’t obvious why individuals with health and socioeconomic risk factors may be more susceptible to the harmful outcomes associated with alcohol, as this was one of the first studies to examine the issue.
It’s possible that these people have a reduced tolerance to alcohol, the authors suggested; they may also take medications that interact poorly with alcohol.
Overall, moderate drinking — defined as between 20 and 40 grams of alcohol daily for men and between 10 to 20 grams for women — was associated with a higher risk of death from all causes and a higher risk of dying of cancer.
Heavier drinking — over 40 grams a day for men and over 20 grams a day for women — was associated with higher deaths from all causes, as well as cancer and cardiovascular disease. . . .
I feel like I am divorcing my own country. It’s quite odd
Much of the rot was there, happening under a series of hapless conservative governments playing games thinking the important decisions were been made by them in Westminster.
But it’s eerily like falling out of love and realising a relationship is over. You go from overly praising to overly criticising. I remember in that divorce movie from decades ago “the wars of the roses” the female character says to her soon-to-be-ex-husband “I now dislike you so much the way you eat makes me want to kill you”
The way Britain eats makes me want to kill Britain. This is an overreaction. Me and the UK have had a kind of trial separation and I’m generally happier away from the marital home so it’s likely time to make it permanent
You and Shamima Begum need to do a sort of swap. You get a Syrian passport and she gets her old UK one back. Everyone a winner.
Why does anyone win if Shamima Begum returns to the UK?
Joke (of course) but since you ask, the UK wins as its current position, upheld by the SC, who got it wrong, is that it's OK to say 'Bangladesh can have her so we needn't even though she is a UK subject' and this position is shameful and pitiful, and makes us look like lawless barbarians with contempt for our obligations.
I'm fine with people making the moral argument, so long as they do not conflate with that of the legal arguments (the law can be an ass after all), which several of the lawyers up to this point were doing, clearly to poor effect. Whether there should be the power to do what was done is a far more interesting question than whether the power exists and whether it was lawfully applied in this case (the answer to which is apparently yes).
But I doubt the government will be eager to start restricting its powers in this area, regardless of any future stance on this case.
One of the tests for this government is this case. If it is populist and without scruple and mercy it will continue this farce. If it is a grown up government of a civilized nation it will rethink and rescind. None of this should be taken as sympathy for the abominations of ISIS supporters or their fellow travellers.
My point was they might take a different stance on this case in future, without sacrificing the potential for the state to do it again. They wouldn't want to bind their hands, thus sidestepping the wider questions and so even if someone would celebrate taking a different stance I doubt it would presage an admission of substantive failing, just something very particular.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
It's quite interesting post election how many of this government's supporters are still desperate to talk about the Tories.
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
Unearthed video: JD Vance attacks women “who can't have kids” because they “passed the biological period when it was possible” as “miserable” people who “have no real value system” and struggle to find “meaning” https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1829920065417785673
I wonder how many of the electorate agree with the stance, if not the inelegant or blunt way he has done so. 10%? 20%?
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It has been theorised that Larry Fink of Black Rock (an entity that owns shares in every single FTSE 100 campany) decided to hammer UK bonds till the Truss Government fell. I have no evidence for that, and it may or may not be true, but nevertheless, the idea of 'the markets' as impartial measuring automatons that flick to 'bad egg' when they see a damaging fiscal event is extremely gauche. Markets consist of powerful institutions and people with political aims, not just a shoal of small investors.
That's why I have a hunch you'll find the bond markets a lot, lot kinder to Reeves' overspending than they were to Truss' tax cuts. Even if the projected net result of the former is worse than the projected net result of the former.
Thanks for confirming you have no fucking idea about this.
The difference is that Truss was proposing massive tax cuts and massive increase in public spending.
But I love the idea that the markets are lefties.
I have worked in this sector for over thirteen years and you are talking utter shite.
The markets in the form of Larry and BlackRock have only one objective, maximising their returns, not propping up leftie governments, which is why he does deals with Saudi Arabia and the NYC Police Association despite lefties telling him to divest.
Whilst I agree. They're hardly likely to clue the lawyers in to their thinking are they?
Well you see, some of their articles of association and contracts say they must only invest in countries/companies with a good credit rating/outlook.
The clients of BlackRock would be furious if their money was being used to bring down governments, they want maximum returns.
Lawyers and compliance managers are often asked to look over said investment strategies and contracts.
Come along. If you are fully informed, as a lawyer, I'll eat a few hats.
Lawyers and compliance managers only ever see part-baked stuff.
I love the idea that there was a conspiracy of billionaire fund managers to bring down Liz Truss. Absolutely nuts.
When I am at Davos next year I'll have a chat with them all about why they hated Liz Truss so much.
I don't suppose they'll be able to impart an awful lot as they're passing you their coats, but do report back.
Last time I was on hooker watch, making sure none of them got close to us.
There are so many escorts at Davos, it's like the queue for Oasis tickets.
I remember many years ago visiting the UN offices in Geneva. Queue of escorts in the street. The first of whom lifted up her skirt to show her... 'wares' and just asked "You like?".
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
You didn’t fancy fish for breakfast?
There are only two things that smell of fish. One is fish.
Yes, the puss from my abdominal abscess smelt like rotting fish.
Earlier today: First time adding about 5 miles of rare track between Lichfield Trent Valley and Wichnor Junction (Birmingham to Burton-on-Trent engineering diversion).
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
It's quite interesting post election how many of this government's supporters are still desperate to talk about the Tories.
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
And they think criticism of the government - Labour - and abuse of its leader - starmer - is somehow immoral or a form of cheating or irrelevant because the next election is 19 years away so everyone should shut up
This is what it’s like being the government. Especially if, so far, you look like being a really SHIT government
Keir Starmer’s net approval ratings are -13%, down 6 points from -7 at a fortnight ago and down a hefty 32 points from +19% in his first approval rating as prime minister.
I would just say this largely mirrors the report in the I yesterday from BMG
I did post the article yesterday but for those who have not read it I post it below
Keir Starmer’s net approval ratings are -13%, down 6 points from -7 at a fortnight ago and down a hefty 32 points from +19% in his first approval rating as prime minister.
Suspect he is taking the flak for Reeves and her shite decisions to be honest.
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
But it’s not PB which is reacting with volatile dislike to Starmer. It’s the voters. In the polls
I'm holding comment until next year's locals, either for Labour disappointment or Conservative improvement (one might occur without the other, to a certain degree).
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
Hague's misfortune was to be up against Blair in his prime.
If Hague had backed Howard for leader, which tactically he should have done in 1997, then Howard would have suffered the landslide defeat in 2001. Hague could then have taken the leadership, not IDS and would have made gains in 2005 and could have stayed leader in 2010 and likely beaten Brown.
Starmer is more Brown than Blair
There is this disconnect between the remaining 3 Tories and reality.
Brown lost. Blair won a majority of 704. As did Starmer.
However bad you and CR and Leon think Starmer is, he won. Massively.
You didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him. Two thirds of the electorate didn't vote for him. But the shitbox electoral system you support gave him a majority of 704, so...
He didn't win massively. He received less than 35% of the vote. It makes his massive majority of MPs uniquely precarious.
And he wasn't honest with the voters before or during the election campaign. That means he is becoming very unpopular, very quickly, now that he is trying to front up to them about how bad the state of the country is in terms of its finances, the general state of the economy, public services, investment, etc.
People obviously are not buying the story that the Tories hid how bad things were. And so Labour's pretence that they are so shocked is not helping to build the bonds of trust that will enable them to carry the public with them through difficult times.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
Ed Davey on a log flume would have been fine. And Rayner just lived in large in Ibiza.
The issue was the baseball cap with the name on it.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
It's quite interesting post election how many of this government's supporters are still desperate to talk about the Tories.
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
It's quite interesting post election how many of the former Government's supporters are desperate to blame anything and everything on the new Government.
It's almost as if they want to forget they were in Government for the last 14 years and what they did or didn't do.
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
But it’s not PB which is reacting with volatile dislike to Starmer. It’s the voters. In the polls
It's a consequence of the Ming vase strategy. You win an election by avoiding any substantial commitment then when you govern you make those choices/decisions you didn't tell anyone about beforehand, and you say you have to clean up the mess left by the previous lot. You can fool most of the people most of the time … etc
Keir Starmer’s net approval ratings are -13%, down 6 points from -7 at a fortnight ago and down a hefty 32 points from +19% in his first approval rating as prime minister.
It's probably necessary for us to endure Sir Sauron and his personal brand of disapproving centrist authoritarianism, just so it can gain the same popularity as a dose of cat aids, and be deleted from our politics for a generation. But it's a shame for the country that the Tories couldn't get their act together and govern properly.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
It's quite interesting post election how many of this government's supporters are still desperate to talk about the Tories.
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
Come on, all governments blame and focus on the last lot for years after they get into power, is it not a tad unrealistic to expect supporters or voters to immediately cease doing the same?
Ok here’s my theory. The public is willing to give Labour time to fix the economy and all that. It has just been 8 weeks
What we are seeing is a sudden brutal realisation that starmer is an absolute fucking plonker and genuinely dislikeable with his tiny mouthed piggy eyed ban everything robot faced take your nan’s fuel but give me £20k suits hypocritical twattishness
So this is an emotional recoil and buyer’s remorse
Riddle me this: bar staff will be expected to police the new no smoking in pub gardens but retail staff - as was discussed at length earlier - are told not to get involved and stop any shop lifting or intervene in any way.
I got wonderfully told off for vaping on a terrace earlier (hadn’t seen the sign two feet away). Bar manager just said calmly, after a friendly hello “could I draw your attention to the sign to your left”. I apologised profusely and he moved me to a table six feet away where I proceeded to blow vape smoke all over the old table.
There will be twats who get angry but most people will just move somewhere else, smoke then go back to where they were.
When you are in a lub you are generally hoping to stay there for a while so will listen to staff, a shop less so.
It makes me so livid I feel like taking up smoking in protest.
Earlier today: First time adding about 5 miles of rare track between Lichfield Trent Valley and Wichnor Junction (Birmingham to Burton-on-Trent engineering diversion).
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
You are perhaps not very interested in politics? I am, which is why I have known Starmer's a dud for over a decade. No hysteria, just depressed recognition of a loser.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
It's quite interesting post election how many of this government's supporters are still desperate to talk about the Tories.
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
It's quite interesting post election how many of the former Government's supporters are desperate to blame anything and everything on the new Government.
It's almost as if they want to forget they were in Government for the last 14 years and what they did or didn't do.
1950s for US auto industry = Age of Planned Obsolescence
2020s for UK Conservative Party = Age of Conscious Amnesia
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
But it’s not PB which is reacting with volatile dislike to Starmer. It’s the voters. In the polls
I’ll reserve judgement. Not sure what the public were expecting at this early stage .
Well, clearly something better than this given these historic drops in popularity in just 8 weeks
The WFA change was a mistake and Reeves should have found that money elsewhere . Annoying pensioners comes at huge political risk . Burning that much political capital to raise a paltry sum seems stupid . Anyhow I’ll wait and see how it goes over the next year.
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
You are perhaps not very interested in politics? I am, which is why I have known Starmer's a dud for over a decade. No hysteria, just depressed recognition of a loser.
Not interested in politics . My problem is I’m too interested and need to get out more !
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 · 3h The graveyards of British politics are filled with people who underestimated Keir Starmer
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
But it’s not PB which is reacting with volatile dislike to Starmer. It’s the voters. In the polls
It's a consequence of the Ming vase strategy. You win an election by avoiding any substantial commitment then when you govern you make those choices/decisions you didn't tell anyone about beforehand, and you say you have to clean up the mess left by the previous lot. You can fool most of the people most of the time … etc
I do like that description of the strategy. Catchier than 'strategic vagueness'
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
It's quite interesting post election how many of this government's supporters are still desperate to talk about the Tories.
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
Come on, all governments blame and focus on the last lot for years after they get into power, is it not a tad unrealistic to expect supporters or voters to immediately cease doing the same?
Wrong. Don't know how old you are, but 1979 and 1997 felt very unlike this. Neither Thatcher nor Blair looked like a whining loser.
Pointless pointless waste of money and the government seems unable to stop spending this and the bills are going up - likewise our taxes
I really don’t mind paying a lot of tax to support hardworking Brits who get sick or those who’ve fallen on tough times. That’s fair
But this???? What sane person agrees to spend their tax on this?
Er, you're straying into politics, I think?
I believe there is a non-trivial chance this Labour government will run out of money and face a bond-market crisis
It seems to be picking up exactly where Gordon Brown left off in 2010.
Brown would never have made the change to WFA. Brown started the long period of pay freezes in the public sector that the coalition continued. Brown was able to explain why doing unpopular things in the short-term - like sticking to the Tory spending plans in the first two years after 1997 - was necessary for the good of the long-term, in a way that Starmer doesn't seem capable of.
There are lots of differences. In pure political terms, Brown would seem to score more highly. Whether Starmer's government gets the economics done better, we will have to cross our fingers and wait and see.
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
But it’s not PB which is reacting with volatile dislike to Starmer. It’s the voters. In the polls
Betting angle: this early collapse makes the next set of local elections more interesting. Though the tories start from a high base, compared with Labour post-2010.
It’s like the last 14 years didn’t happen for some .
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
You are perhaps not very interested in politics? I am, which is why I have known Starmer's a dud for over a decade. No hysteria, just depressed recognition of a loser.
Not interested in politics . My problem is I’m too interested and need to get out more !
Too interested but can't tell that Starmer is a failure? Golly.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
No one will care about the Tories. Get over it
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
It's quite interesting post election how many of this government's supporters are still desperate to talk about the Tories.
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
Come on, all governments blame and focus on the last lot for years after they get into power, is it not a tad unrealistic to expect supporters or voters to immediately cease doing the same?
Wrong. Don't know how old you are, but 1979 and 1997 felt very unlike this. Neither Thatcher nor Blair looked like a whining loser.
I know that we didn't have as much internet whinging in general back then either, times are different all around. I also know that Gordon Brown was still trying the blame the last government excuse 13 years in (the Tories I don't think did that as much at the end, more warning what would happen if Labour got back in), and undoubtedly some of his supporters will have done so.
I don't find it very credible or reasonable to expect people who were and are angry about the last 14 years (or just 5 or 2 years of it) to immediately transfer all critical faculties onto the government of the day. The 'It's been two months' crowd have a point here, and presenting it as some weird action worthy of comment just looks dumb to me.
Christ, online political commentary periodically still breaks out into Thatcher hate/worship (thankfully not as much as it used to) and she left office over 30 years ago.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
People won’t even notice the Tories for the next two years at least. The anger really will be aimed at Labour. Because they came in promising turbocharged growth and sorting out the boats and a fix to the NHS - and none of this is likely to happen. Indeed their policies are so shit it might all get much much worse
Sure! But then we get a bit further along and Jenrick is watching VHS tapes of Hague on the Log Flume and wondering how he can look that cool.
Hague's misfortune was to be up against Blair in his prime.
If Hague had backed Howard for leader, which tactically he should have done in 1997, then Howard would have suffered the landslide defeat in 2001. Hague could then have taken the leadership, not IDS and would have made gains in 2005 and could have stayed leader in 2010 and likely beaten Brown.
Starmer is more Brown than Blair
There is this disconnect between the remaining 3 Tories and reality.
Brown lost. Blair won a majority of 704. As did Starmer.
However bad you and CR and Leon think Starmer is, he won. Massively.
You didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him. Two thirds of the electorate didn't vote for him. But the shitbox electoral system you support gave him a majority of 704, so...
He didn't win massively. He received less than 35% of the vote. It makes his massive majority of MPs uniquely precarious.
And he wasn't honest with the voters before or during the election campaign. That means he is becoming very unpopular, very quickly, now that he is trying to front up to them about how bad the state of the country is in terms of its finances, the general state of the economy, public services, investment, etc.
People obviously are not buying the story that the Tories hid how bad things were. And so Labour's pretence that they are so shocked is not helping to build the bonds of trust that will enable them to carry the public with them through difficult times.
It's all so pathetically dimwitted.
Politically, it'd have been much better for Starmer/Reeves to gently joust with the unions over the summer, saying they were driving a tough bargain etc, and then do a nice big settlement in October together with the spending review and budget.
Doing the pay settlement first and then moaning about the massive "black hole" it helped create was almost moronic, and it takes voters for fools.
Must admit that Donad Trump and his hirlings have outdone themselves THIS time.
That is, going into and no doubt through the (at least) 3-day Labor Day weekend in the USA, the TOP political story is their conduct unbecoming at Arlington National Cemetery.
At least, when it comes to conduct unbecoming at a war cemetery, at least the Trump Campaign believes in Truth in advertising. Social . . . or sociopathic*?
* note that yours truly is a psephologist NOT a psychiatrist hence NO violation of the Goldwater Rule.
But, and this is really important, it's not his fault.
It is someone else's.
In USA general election for POTUS, the Candidate and Campaign are ONE and the same.
Trump hired his hirlings, he eats their shit. Currently by the bucket-full.
Everyone seems to be getting awfully excited about polls, four and a half years before the next election.
Very odd.
Labour are going to disappoint, annoy and upset people.
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 · 3h The graveyards of British politics are filled with people who underestimated Keir Starmer
Are they? Names please.
Rishi Sunak, Jezza, er....
The obvious one is that scruffy bloke. Remember- used to be Prime Minister, writes columns in the Mail now.
It's why it would be foolish to write off SKS too quickly. Through 2020, he slowly, painfully rolled the stone up the hill, brought Labour back to parity in the polls. Then the vaccines came along, Boris was a hero once more, and the stone rolled right back down the hill again.
Keeping buggering on is Starmer's superpower. It may not work, of course, but in many situations it's all anyone can do.
Comments
I had to make my excuses as it was about 6am and I hadn't had breakfast yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/31/voters-believe-labour-on-uks-woes-but-not-on-its-proposed-fixes
“Leaning heavily into the idea that an omelette requires breaking a few eggs, the prime minister now scores well on competence and decisiveness. However, Starmer has also taken huge hits on being in touch (from a net score of +4 in June to -14 now), on being likeable (-1 to -12), and on being trustworthy (-3 to -11).
This seems likely to store up problems for the government even in their first few months, unless they get better at communicating their long-term strategy. Things will only get harder once a new Conservative leader is ready to benefit from the unpopular decisions all governments have to”
Oh dear what a shame etc
Still, thank god Keir Starmer has the humourous charisma that will win people back
Those people are so fucking dense they should never comment on politics or anything else ever again.
The right wing press has done a brilliant job of making him out as an unlikeable, puritanical little knob of a man, ably assisted - it has to be said - by Sir Keir Starmer
https://x.com/thisdiegolopez/status/1829621831185105205
Very odd.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4855089-harris-bus-tour-eproductive-rights-palm-beach/
If you immediately go into freefall that’s really bad. And that’s what’s happening to Starmer - as it happened to about 398 Tory PMs before him
They never recovered because recovering is hard
There are two telling contrasts. Blair - whose polling (IIRC) actually went UP after his election. And thatcher who IIRC managed to get over a bad start with the help of the Falklands (something of a miracle)
Those are the two most successful postwar PMs
But that is nothing compared to their annoyance and upset at whatever wazzock the Tories elect as leader who reminds them of Sunak and the Lettuce and Shagger.
And in response to your previous comment, from my point of view it's not about right or centre so much as accepting or denying arithmetic. If a politician wishes to say "government should stop doing X, it will save the state Y and enable Z in tax cuts", fine. What I have a major beef with is when X and Y aren't said at all. Or even when Y and Z are said, without X. Which was basically the Hunt-Sunak strategy over the last nine months or so.
Talking of spending commitments, who should I be making the cheque out to for living in your head? It doesn't feel right to be doing so rent-free.
Nick Cohen
@NickCohen4
·
3h
The graveyards of British politics are filled with people who underestimated Keir Starmer
He was elected, like, last month. And he still hasn't done 8 weeks in the job.
That's just how it is now.
There will be twats who get angry but most people will just move somewhere else, smoke then go back to where they were.
When you are in a lub you are generally hoping to stay there for a while so will listen to staff, a shop less so.
I mean, it matters who they elect but the entire focus will be on Labour. That’s “being the government”. And it doesn’t help Labour that they have a calamitously unlikeable leader
I honestly think they’d have been better with Rayner
If Hague had backed Howard for leader, which tactically he should have done in 1997, then Howard would have suffered the landslide defeat in 2001. Hague could then have taken the leadership, not IDS and would have made gains in 2005 and could have stayed leader in 2010 and likely beaten Brown.
Starmer is more Brown than Blair
This people don't think and nor do they want to think.
Must admit that Donad Trump and his hirlings have outdone themselves THIS time.
That is, going into and no doubt through the (at least) 3-day Labor Day weekend in the USA, the TOP political story is their conduct unbecoming at Arlington National Cemetery.
At least, when it comes to conduct unbecoming at a war cemetery, at least the Trump Campaign believes in Truth in advertising. Social . . . or sociopathic*?
* note that yours truly is a psephologist NOT a psychiatrist hence NO violation of the Goldwater Rule.
There are those whose hostility to Labour in any form means they were critics from round about Admiralty Arch on the morning of July 5th. Within that group you have those who claim to have voted Labour, those who were deeply critical of Rishi Sunak and those who praised him right up to the end. The only thing they share is an almost visceral hostility to Labour in Government.
There are others who were noticeably absent or reticent about criticising the last months of the Sunak Government but as soon as Starmer became Prime Minister, were quickly into stride shouting their hostility and opposition to anything and everything.
I shouldn't make the assumption hostility to Labour equates to a desire to see the Conservatives back in office - we are in a multi-polar political environment at the moment and I can imagine plenty of those who voted Reform or Lib Dem or Green or didn't vote at all being less than happy with how the new Government has begun its life.
I'm reminded it's a marathon not a sprint - there might not be another General Election until the spring of 2029 and a lot will happen between now and then.
As someone who didn't vote Labour either, but understands how politics works, it's clear Starmer wouldn't be the first Prime Minister who sought to get the pain done and dusted quickly. I suspect the next 18-24 months will be very uncomfortable for the Government and its supporters - those with longer memories will recall the depth of the hole the Thatcher Government was in by the summer and autumn of 1981.
There are two parts to this - first, the Government has to deal not just with the failures but the indecisions of the predecessor administrations in areas such as prison capacity, immigration and housing/homelessness. Second, it has to restore a degree of faith in Government and the political process so that turnout numbers such as we saw in July aren't repeated next time.
Your choice.
It is someone else's.
Brown lost. Blair won a majority of 704. As did Starmer.
However bad you and CR and Leon think Starmer is, he won. Massively.
You didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him. Two thirds of the electorate didn't vote for him. But the shitbox electoral system you support gave him a majority of 704, so...
🚨 New polling with @ObserverUK
Keir Starmer’s net approval ratings are -13%, down 6 points from -7 at a fortnight ago and down a hefty 32 points from +19% in his first approval rating as prime minister.
The Tories have left the country in a total mess. So frankly the hysteria over Starmer when he’s been in charge for under two months is laughable .
. . . The new study found that while older adults who were light drinkers faced higher risks of dying if they had health-related or socioeconomic risk factors, drinking mostly wine and drinking only with meals moderated the risk, particularly of death from cancer.
The reasons were not entirely clear, Dr. Ortolá said. But the reduction may be because of slower alcohol absorption, or it might reflect other healthy choices from these people.
It also wasn’t obvious why individuals with health and socioeconomic risk factors may be more susceptible to the harmful outcomes associated with alcohol, as this was one of the first studies to examine the issue.
It’s possible that these people have a reduced tolerance to alcohol, the authors suggested; they may also take medications that interact poorly with alcohol.
Overall, moderate drinking — defined as between 20 and 40 grams of alcohol daily for men and between 10 to 20 grams for women — was associated with a higher risk of death from all causes and a higher risk of dying of cancer.
Heavier drinking — over 40 grams a day for men and over 20 grams a day for women — was associated with higher deaths from all causes, as well as cancer and cardiovascular disease. . . .
SSI - AND here is link to the new UK study:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2822215
It's almost as if they can't adjust to being in charge.
Earlier today: First time adding about 5 miles of rare track between Lichfield Trent Valley and Wichnor Junction (Birmingham to Burton-on-Trent engineering diversion).
This is what it’s like being the government. Especially if, so far, you look like being a really SHIT government
I did post the article yesterday but for those who have not read it I post it below
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/voters-labour-dishonest-tax-plans-fuel-duty-rise-3253546
And he wasn't honest with the voters before or during the election campaign. That means he is becoming very unpopular, very quickly, now that he is trying to front up to them about how bad the state of the country is in terms of its finances, the general state of the economy, public services, investment, etc.
People obviously are not buying the story that the Tories hid how bad things were. And so Labour's pretence that they are so shocked is not helping to build the bonds of trust that will enable them to carry the public with them through difficult times.
It's all so pathetically dimwitted.
The issue was the baseball cap with the name on it.
You've got to be yourself and do yourself.
It's almost as if they want to forget they were in Government for the last 14 years and what they did or didn't do.
What we are seeing is a sudden brutal realisation that starmer is an absolute fucking plonker and genuinely dislikeable with his tiny mouthed piggy eyed ban everything robot faced take your nan’s fuel but give me £20k suits hypocritical twattishness
So this is an emotional recoil and buyer’s remorse
It is justified as a policy, but not in the manifesto and doing so just as awarding train drivers an inflationary busting pay rise was terrible optics
Eventually a government will just repeal bits of the HRA and abrogate the treaties that oblige them to do it.
This is liberal ideology coming up against political reality. Bit like free movement.
2020s for UK Conservative Party = Age of Conscious Amnesia
Tories 411 seats
Sleep well everyone
There are lots of differences. In pure political terms, Brown would seem to score more highly. Whether Starmer's government gets the economics done better, we will have to cross our fingers and wait and see.
I don't find it very credible or reasonable to expect people who were and are angry about the last 14 years (or just 5 or 2 years of it) to immediately transfer all critical faculties onto the government of the day. The 'It's been two months' crowd have a point here, and presenting it as some weird action worthy of comment just looks dumb to me.
Christ, online political commentary periodically still breaks out into Thatcher hate/worship (thankfully not as much as it used to) and she left office over 30 years ago.
Doing the pay settlement first and then moaning about the massive "black hole" it helped create was almost moronic, and it takes voters for fools.
Trump hired his hirlings, he eats their shit. Currently by the bucket-full.
Serves him & them right (in more ways than one).
It's why it would be foolish to write off SKS too quickly. Through 2020, he slowly, painfully rolled the stone up the hill, brought Labour back to parity in the polls. Then the vaccines came along, Boris was a hero once more, and the stone rolled right back down the hill again.
Keeping buggering on is Starmer's superpower. It may not work, of course, but in many situations it's all anyone can do.