When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
It's not weird at all. It's a nuanced response to a long term ally apparently losing sight of its obligations under international law.
If the case has already been taken to the ICC by other countries, for us also to do so would be little more than performative.
So we think that Israel is committing war crimes but don't want to register this at the ICC because it would be performative? That's truly weird.
Saying there is a clear risk means that Israel has form in this area. And yet the UK government says that it is making no judgement about any violation. That is illogical. A clear risk must only mean that it has happened before and might happen again with UK-supplied weapons. Otherwise it is meaningless.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this specific question, I think it's clearly wrong to require that something has happened before for it to be a "clear risk". It's essentially a "what is the likelihood" judgement call, and things can be quite likely to happen even if it would be the first time for them to happen.
The war has been going on for a year and Lab has not joined the ICC action. Indeed Lammy explicitly said it wasn't a determination of (innocence or) guilt. It's a weird quantum state that the UK government thinks exists in Israel/Gaza.
I can understand your having problems grasping quantum mechanics.
But the idea that there might be no simple way to deal with an ally which is behaving in a way we disapprove of, and over whom we have quite limited influence, is not a hard one to grasp.
It's weird. Like those university students who occupy the library at night when it's closed to prove a point.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Osborne and Truss cut tax, Sunak and Cleverly cut immigration
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
Hunt has been the one person who's been leading a decent opposition since 4th July.
Winds up something chronic that he's labelled as a "Wet" or "Remoaner" or effete Cameroon.
He's an effective Conservative.
His efforts to win his marginal seat demand respect. The fact the Tories dislike him says much about their current troubles. Head and shoulders above the likes of Truss. A serious old school street fighting Tory.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see the Tories taking on reform and defeating them rather than trying to accommodate them. Who is best placed of the current leadership to do that?
What such people really mean by "defeat" Reform, is make their arguments, policy and party go away by condemning and pwning them.
The actual way to really defeat them is to engage with the underlying issues, and that would mean to stop the boats and lower legal migration.
Which isn't what such people want: they want a satisfying evisceration and the status quo to continue.
Mr. HYUFD, you're comparing apples and oranges. While Corbyn was a constant the public perception of him was not. Any Conservative would have beaten him in 2019.
Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons.
*waves*
Absobloodylutely.
That's why I voted for Boris. Not guilty at all. He was a useless, lazy, solipsistic twat. But still better him than Jezza.
But on a site allegedly about betting on politics one might have thought users would be able to accurately judge the chances of Corby winning, which were somewhere in the range of zilch to fuck all.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
Mr. HYUFD, you're comparing apples and oranges. While Corbyn was a constant the public perception of him was not. Any Conservative would have beaten him in 2019.
Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons.
*waves*
Absobloodylutely.
That's why I voted for Boris. Not guilty at all. He was a useless, lazy, solipsistic twat. But still better him than Jezza.
But on a site allegedly about betting on politics one might have thought users would be able to accurately judge the chances of Corby winning, which were somewhere in the range of zilch to fuck all.
Yep on PB where there is no dissenting voice about any political outcome whatsoever.
And if it was beyond reach for Jezza (I'm sure all the @bjos of the site tell us that he actually won the election) then so be it. It was just a chance I couldn't take.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
Hunt has been the one person who's been leading a decent opposition since 4th July.
Winds up something chronic that he's labelled as a "Wet" or "Remoaner" or effete Cameroon.
He's an effective Conservative.
Though this rather undercuts his criticism of Reeves.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3z2xz1nzo ...Former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt wrote to Mr Case in July saying it was "deeply troubling" that Rachel Reeves’s claims about the public finances appeared to contradict formal government spending estimates published shortly beforehand. In his response, which has been leaked to the BBC, Mr Case said the mismatch identified by Mr Hunt was a result of the compressed parliamentary timetable between the sudden general election and the summer. But then he went further, questioning why the government in which Mr Hunt served had not updated different departments’ budgets since 2021. "I would also note that the sizeable in-year changes to spending plans in recent years have resulted from the lack of a new Spending Review to replan departmental budgets in the face of significant pressures which have materialised since budgets were set in 2021," Mr Case wrote. "By the time the election was called, we were in the final year of the 2021 Spending Review period. The most effective way to transparently identify, quantify and address those pressures would have been to conduct a prompt Spending Review." At another point, Mr Case said that "unlike previous years" the current government "has set out to Parliament the pressures that it is having to manage down and the actions it is taking to do so"...
Not really, few governments bring forward a comprehensive Spending Review to just before an election - and the previous was still current.
Hunt is getting traction because he's pointing out Labour's hypocrisy in blaming him for policy choices they'd already made but kept quiet about during the election, and people can see that with public sector pay.
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
I didn't read the rest.
"IDS was right."
Sorry if that triggered you but a poor leader of only moderate ability doesn't mean he didn't get some things right or have zero insights.
His Glasgow Easterhouse visit was a good move and an important one.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
Hunt has been the one person who's been leading a decent opposition since 4th July.
Winds up something chronic that he's labelled as a "Wet" or "Remoaner" or effete Cameroon.
He's an effective Conservative.
His efforts to win his marginal seat demand respect. The fact the Tories dislike him says much about their current troubles. Head and shoulders above the likes of Truss. A serious old school street fighting Tory.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see the Tories taking on reform and defeating them rather than trying to accommodate them. Who is best placed of the current leadership to do that?
What such people really mean by "defeat" Reform, is make their arguments, policy and party go away by condemning and pwning them.
The actual way to really defeat them is to engage with the underlying issues, and that would mean to stop the boats and lower legal migration.
Which isn't what such people want: they want a satisfying evisceration and the status quo to continue.
The problem with populists like Reform is that they do not want to actually solve the issues they raise. They get their energy from ramping the problem and amplifying division, creating scapegoats. If one problem goes away they move onto another. There’s always someone to blame and win votes.
A Conservative Party needs to discredit their lazy platitudes and come up with solutions rather than gimmicks designed to achieve a good headline in the daily mail. You know, working for the good of the nation overall. Bringing people together. Old school one nation stuff.
Moving away from a single national price for electricity would probably lower prices for all consumers.
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/where-the-wind-blows ...3. Using existing infrastructure better. The advantage of nodal pricing isn’t just that more infrastructure will be built in places where it’s more useful, but the infrastructure itself will be used more efficiently too. Let’s stick with batteries in West Texas. What’s interesting about the Texan market, which by the way leads the US in adding renewables, is that not only are batteries located in response to local prices, but the way they’re used is different too. West Texan batteries make more of their money through trading energy (buying it when it’s cheap and selling it when it’s expensive to smooth out prices), while batteries in South Texas earn their money through grid reliability services (preventing blackouts when demand for power outstrips supply).
It’s not just batteries either. One of the ways that Britain’s grid manages the intermittency of renewables is through interconnectors (big cables connecting Britain’s grid to the grids of Norway, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands). Yet, a single national price for energy does weird things with interconnectors. It can create situations where interconnectors end up making constraints worse forcing us to curtail even more renewable power.
For example, when the link between Scotland and England is over-congested but the national price remains high, it can lead to us importing energy from Norway into Scotland and force us to curtail even more renewable power. Under a locational pricing system, prices close to zero in a constrained Scotland would lead to us exporting power to Norway. The end result being cheaper bills for households across the country...
You mean that charging a single national price, when there isn’t a perfectly even market with perfect communication of products leads to distortions?
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
The key result there is that 41% of Reform voters think Labour/Tories are similar, compared to 27% thinking that the Tories/Reform are similar.
Any member of Reform and the Tories risks losing voters to a new/different party of the right, as well as losing voters to the centre (20% of Tory voters think the Tories/Lib Dems are similar).
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
Hunt has been the one person who's been leading a decent opposition since 4th July.
Winds up something chronic that he's labelled as a "Wet" or "Remoaner" or effete Cameroon.
He's an effective Conservative.
Though this rather undercuts his criticism of Reeves.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3z2xz1nzo ...Former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt wrote to Mr Case in July saying it was "deeply troubling" that Rachel Reeves’s claims about the public finances appeared to contradict formal government spending estimates published shortly beforehand. In his response, which has been leaked to the BBC, Mr Case said the mismatch identified by Mr Hunt was a result of the compressed parliamentary timetable between the sudden general election and the summer. But then he went further, questioning why the government in which Mr Hunt served had not updated different departments’ budgets since 2021. "I would also note that the sizeable in-year changes to spending plans in recent years have resulted from the lack of a new Spending Review to replan departmental budgets in the face of significant pressures which have materialised since budgets were set in 2021," Mr Case wrote. "By the time the election was called, we were in the final year of the 2021 Spending Review period. The most effective way to transparently identify, quantify and address those pressures would have been to conduct a prompt Spending Review." At another point, Mr Case said that "unlike previous years" the current government "has set out to Parliament the pressures that it is having to manage down and the actions it is taking to do so"...
Not really, few governments bring forward a comprehensive Spending Review to just before an election - and the previous was still current.
Hunt is getting traction because he's pointing out Labour's hypocrisy in blaming him for policy choices they'd already made but kept quiet about during the election, and people can see that with public sector pay.
Labour are not blaming Hunt for their policy choices. They are holding him responsible for the state of the finances they inherited.
We will judge them in due course on the outcomes of their policies. A scant two months after they entered government is a little early for that.
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
Sadly, there are a few on PB who would vote for the fascist.
It is not just a general sense of Tory incompetence is it though?
It is the very specific issue of the spectacular failure of Brexit both in conception and in implementation that defines the Tory brand. "The party that severely damaged the economy and the global standing of the nation in order to address their own internal political disputes".
For that alone Surrey or Oxfordshire is not coming back to the Tories for a very long time, if ever.
Despite William Hague´s bromides in today´s Times, I think that the Tories will struggle to recover at all until they have some much better answers to the Brexit conundrum. Those answers do not include middle aged people in polyester mix suits saying that the solution is even more extreme and unreasonable policies.
Rwanda, like Brexit, was another policy that did not stand up to real world scrutiny. A gimmick more than anything else, yet still the Tories and their little propagandists in the press continue to defend the useless and indefensible.
They do the same with Brexit, though ever less convincingly. Unless you accept that the policy has failed and that these failures must be mitigated, then you are not even in the conversation. The Lib Dems and Labour know that, the Tories still do not. Even a new leader is just a sticking plaster over the Brexit wound for the Tories.
The Tory problem is that they are increasingly seen as "Weird".
Very interesting thread header. From an LD perspective, the biggest disconnect between how our voters see us, and how other parties' voters see us, is with the Greens. My take from this that we should stop "playing nicely" with the Greens. This is already the case in Scotland.
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
I didn't read the rest.
"IDS was right."
Sorry if that triggered you...
No, you're not; and it didn't. It merely coloured the rest of your comment. Which I bothered to read.
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
Sadly, there are a few on PB who would vote for the fascist.
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
They need to move the centre.
They can either change Tory voters to be like Reform voters - basically what Trump has achieved with the GOP in the US - or they can change Reform voters to be Tory voters.
One of those options is much better for the country than the other.
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
I didn't read the rest.
"IDS was right."
Sorry if that triggered you...
No, you're not; and it didn't. It merely coloured the rest of your comment. Which I bothered to read.
My view is not so much that it is the main party that occupies "the centre ground", more that it is the leader who appears to be closest to it. Hence Margaret Thatcher was closer than Foot and Kinnock, Major closer than Kinnock, Blair v Major (arguable), Cameron v Milibland, The Clown v Mr Thicky, and ultimately Sir Keir Boring v Sunak.
It is not just a general sense of Tory incompetence is it though?
It is the very specific issue of the spectacular failure of Brexit both in conception and in implementation that defines the Tory brand. "The party that severely damaged the economy and the global standing of the nation in order to address their own internal political disputes".
For that alone Surrey or Oxfordshire is not coming back to the Tories for a very long time, if ever.
Despite William Hague´s bromides in today´s Times, I think that the Tories will struggle to recover at all until they have some much better answers to the Brexit conundrum. Those answers do not include middle aged people in polyester mix suits saying that the solution is even more extreme and unreasonable policies.
Rwanda, like Brexit, was another policy that did not stand up to real world scrutiny. A gimmick more than anything else, yet still the Tories and their little propagandists in the press continue to defend the useless and indefensible.
They do the same with Brexit, though ever less convincingly. Unless you accept that the policy has failed and that these failures must be mitigated, then you are not even in the conversation. The Lib Dems and Labour know that, the Tories still do not. Even a new leader is just a sticking plaster over the Brexit wound for the Tories.
The Tory problem is that they are increasingly seen as "Weird".
Top Trump volunteer in Mass. no longer with campaign after warning New Hampshire is ‘no longer a battleground state’ RNC says campaign remains on the ground in New Hampshire https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/02/nation/new-hampshire-battleground-2024-harris-trump/ ...Steve Stepanek, who leads Trump’s campaign in New Hampshire, said Mountain “obviously has no idea what is going on in NH because he is from Massachusetts” but did not respond to further questions.
Even as Mountain’s message rankled many of his fellow Republicans, who complained he was uninformed or speaking out of turn, it underscored deep concerns among some in the GOP that having Harris at the top of the ticket makes Democrats more competitive in swing states such as New Hampshire. Mountain declined an interview request.
New Hampshire is a purple state, with a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor, but it has not voted for a Republican for president in more than 20 years. This year, with Biden at the top of the ticket, the GOP there was optimistic about taking the state back for Trump.
But since Harris ascended to the top of the ticket and built new momentum on the Democratic side, the race in Republican reach states such as New Hampshire has appeared to tighten. A recent poll found Harris leading Trump in the state, and she is expected to appear in New Hampshire this week. The Cook Political Report recently moved the state from “lean” to “likely” Democratic, another indication of Harris’s strength there. Given that challenge, as well as how few electoral votes New Hampshire carries — just four — it may not be worth investing in, some New England Republicans quietly acknowledge...
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
I don't remember a single person on here predicting Corbyn might win but happy to be corrected. Polling had the Tories on a lead of around 10 points for the last 4 months of the year, I don't think one had to possess hindsight or be Nostradamus to be making a safe prediction.
I do recognise the shat your pants principle whereby the 2017 GE made a lot of folk over fearful of something similar happening again.
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
Sadly, there are a few on PB who would vote for the fascist.
Why not give the fascist a name. Nigel Farage.
Too centrist for some here! They'd rather Tommy Robinson, Alice Weidel and Kari Lake.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
I think I'm too politically engaged to bring any wisdom on the topic. Parties are broad coalitions and naturally there are areas where they overlap. It doesn't make them "the same" or "similar" just a recognition there is a commonality on some topics across some parties some of the time.
There's a secondary issue about Party "culture" and how said parties are seen to operate. How parties are perceived is often less about what they say than how they say it (Stodge's Twelfth Law of Politics). My personal experience from my activist days in the Alliance was when I encountered Conservative and Labour activists at elections or when out delivering/canvassing I always found them friendly and interesting - it was almost as though we were colleagues doing the same job in different organisations, there was a mutual understanding and respect.
Some members from opposing parties were pretty hostile if you canvassed them (you knew where some where but if one had recently moved into the Ward and you didn't know..) and could be quite aggressive and rude. The most hostile were often the recent converts from other parties (especially yours). I never found that with the actual activists.
Very interesting thread header. From an LD perspective, the biggest disconnect between how our voters see us, and how other parties' voters see us, is with the Greens. My take from this that we should stop "playing nicely" with the Greens. This is already the case in Scotland.
I think the Green Party probably made a mistake in fairly clearly identifying as a party of the left. While it gets them a certain amount of support, it undermines the credibility of their stance as a party of the environment for the majority of the electorate.
Top Trump volunteer in Mass. no longer with campaign after warning New Hampshire is ‘no longer a battleground state’ RNC says campaign remains on the ground in New Hampshire https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/02/nation/new-hampshire-battleground-2024-harris-trump/ ...Steve Stepanek, who leads Trump’s campaign in New Hampshire, said Mountain “obviously has no idea what is going on in NH because he is from Massachusetts” but did not respond to further questions.
Even as Mountain’s message rankled many of his fellow Republicans, who complained he was uninformed or speaking out of turn, it underscored deep concerns among some in the GOP that having Harris at the top of the ticket makes Democrats more competitive in swing states such as New Hampshire. Mountain declined an interview request.
New Hampshire is a purple state, with a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor, but it has not voted for a Republican for president in more than 20 years. This year, with Biden at the top of the ticket, the GOP there was optimistic about taking the state back for Trump.
But since Harris ascended to the top of the ticket and built new momentum on the Democratic side, the race in Republican reach states such as New Hampshire has appeared to tighten. A recent poll found Harris leading Trump in the state, and she is expected to appear in New Hampshire this week. The Cook Political Report recently moved the state from “lean” to “likely” Democratic, another indication of Harris’s strength there. Given that challenge, as well as how few electoral votes New Hampshire carries — just four — it may not be worth investing in, some New England Republicans quietly acknowledge...
Harris is 'expected to appear in New Hampshire this week'. Would Hilary Clinton have done so? Underlines the enthusiastic effort Harris, and Walz, are putting into the campaign.
"There are thought to be hundreds of wild beavers living “illegally” in English rivers and more than 1,000 in Scotland."
Of course it’s illegal.
None of them have filled out any forms, before emigrating into British rivers. They have even constructed homes without planning permission, and completing reports on the effects of their homes on water quality, equality, disability access etc etc.
The key result there is that 41% of Reform voters think Labour/Tories are similar, compared to 27% thinking that the Tories/Reform are similar.
Any member of Reform and the Tories risks losing voters to a new/different party of the right, as well as losing voters to the centre (20% of Tory voters think the Tories/Lib Dems are similar).
It's a tough situation for the Tories.
Tories traditionally accommodated the fruitcakes while mostly ignoring them. That doesn't look likely to reassert itself any time soon.
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
It's not weird at all. It's a nuanced response to a long term ally apparently losing sight of its obligations under international law.
If the case has already been taken to the ICC by other countries, for us also to do so would be little more than performative.
So we think that Israel is committing war crimes but don't want to register this at the ICC because it would be performative? That's truly weird.
Saying there is a clear risk means that Israel has form in this area. And yet the UK government says that it is making no judgement about any violation. That is illogical. A clear risk must only mean that it has happened before and might happen again with UK-supplied weapons. Otherwise it is meaningless.
No, just an arguable case but not strong enough evidence
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
A few areas of Europe doing well though, Switzerland, Luxembourg and even Ireland all have a higher gdp per capita than the US
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
Doesn't Roger live in a town which voted 60% Le Pen ?
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
AIUI, the relevant UK law says that weapons can't be exported if there is a risk that they might be used in violation of international law. By following the relevant processes, the government has determined that such a risk does indeed exist, which therefore means that the weapons can't be exported. I don't see how that is weird.
That seems a little Jesuitical, "convenient", or perhaps I should say "lawyerly" - in pursuit of politics perhaps. If they wanted to export the weapons, they could find a way.
We routinely export weapons to the USA, who are quite willing to violate international law, and are not even signed up to a fair chunk of it.
I think that's indicative of certain problems with international law, and treaties we are signed up to - which may imo be questionable in changed global circumstances. An example is perhaps the ban on cluster munitions, which had the USA been as fully signed up as we are would have weakened Ukrained.
Today is imo more morally ambiguous than yesterday; I am glad these are not decisions I have to make.
The key result there is that 41% of Reform voters think Labour/Tories are similar, compared to 27% thinking that the Tories/Reform are similar.
Any member of Reform and the Tories risks losing voters to a new/different party of the right, as well as losing voters to the centre (20% of Tory voters think the Tories/Lib Dems are similar).
It's a tough situation for the Tories.
Tories traditionally accommodated the fruitcakes while mostly ignoring them. That doesn't look likely to reassert itself any time soon.
Cameron didn't, in 2015 12% voted UKIP but he still won a small majority. However I think only Tugendhat would have the chance of winning back enough Cameron voters now voting Labour or LD to repeat that feat if Reform stay in double figures.
Boris won the other way round, he lost some Remainers to the LDs but won almost all the UKIP 2015 vote and added a few Labour Leave voters who voted for Miliband in 2015
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
I didn't read the rest.
"IDS was right."
Sorry if that triggered you...
No, you're not; and it didn't. It merely coloured the rest of your comment. Which I bothered to read.
My view is not so much that it is the main party that occupies "the centre ground", more that it is the leader who appears to be closest to it. Hence Margaret Thatcher was closer than Foot and Kinnock, Major closer than Kinnock, Blair v Major (arguable), Cameron v Milibland, The Clown v Mr Thicky, and ultimately Sir Keir Boring v Sunak.
Normally, but in 1979 though Callaghan was closer to the 'centre ground' than Thatcher. In 1974 and 1966 Heath was closer to the 'centre ground' than Wilson. In 1945 and 1950 Churchill was also arguably closer to the 'centre ground' than Attlee
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
A few areas of Europe doing well though, Switzerland, Luxembourg and even Ireland all have a higher gdp per capita than the US
Top Trump volunteer in Mass. no longer with campaign after warning New Hampshire is ‘no longer a battleground state’ RNC says campaign remains on the ground in New Hampshire https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/02/nation/new-hampshire-battleground-2024-harris-trump/ ...Steve Stepanek, who leads Trump’s campaign in New Hampshire, said Mountain “obviously has no idea what is going on in NH because he is from Massachusetts” but did not respond to further questions.
Even as Mountain’s message rankled many of his fellow Republicans, who complained he was uninformed or speaking out of turn, it underscored deep concerns among some in the GOP that having Harris at the top of the ticket makes Democrats more competitive in swing states such as New Hampshire. Mountain declined an interview request.
New Hampshire is a purple state, with a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor, but it has not voted for a Republican for president in more than 20 years. This year, with Biden at the top of the ticket, the GOP there was optimistic about taking the state back for Trump.
But since Harris ascended to the top of the ticket and built new momentum on the Democratic side, the race in Republican reach states such as New Hampshire has appeared to tighten. A recent poll found Harris leading Trump in the state, and she is expected to appear in New Hampshire this week. The Cook Political Report recently moved the state from “lean” to “likely” Democratic, another indication of Harris’s strength there. Given that challenge, as well as how few electoral votes New Hampshire carries — just four — it may not be worth investing in, some New England Republicans quietly acknowledge...
Harris is 'expected to appear in New Hampshire this week'. Would Hilary Clinton have done so? Underlines the enthusiastic effort Harris, and Walz, are putting into the campaign.
And Good Morning everybody.
I noticed there were several Democratic events on Labour Day, with Harris, Walz and Biden - and Trump/Vance took the day off. That's tactically inept if they want to contest a state like Pennsylvania, where union membership is significantly above the national average.
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
AIUI, the relevant UK law says that weapons can't be exported if there is a risk that they might be used in violation of international law. By following the relevant processes, the government has determined that such a risk does indeed exist, which therefore means that the weapons can't be exported. I don't see how that is weird.
It is weird because why would there be a risk if it hasn't happened already. What has changed (apart from the UK government) that means now all of a sudden there is a clear risk. Presumably the Cons (and their legal advisors) didn't think there was a risk but now there is a risk.
Lammy says there is a risk that UK-supplied weapons might be used to commit violations of international law. Which implies that he thinks Israel is violating international law. So take them to the ICC.
Much as I consider Lammy the weakest of links (however smart he may be) it doesn't mean he thinks that they are *currently* violating international law. He could have intelligence about intended use, or extrapolating from public statements or whatever other criteria constitute the risk assessment.
The fact that this is occurring "after nearly a year" is also irrelevant. The previous Government (of fine, upstanding, hardworking, capable individuals feted for their successes on all stages) took one view. A few weeks later, another Government takes another view.
It should also be noted that the war has now shifted to The West Bank which has nothing to do with Gaza and where Israels actions are clearly both immoral AND illegal. There is not even the fig leaf of October 7th to hide behind. Lammy and the British government are are clearly trying to edge away from this while they still can.
This is well worth watching. Peter Oborne from being a Thatcher disciple has now embedded himself in the West bank and is doing some serious reporting
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
A few areas of Europe doing well though, Switzerland, Luxembourg and even Ireland all have a higher gdp per capita than the US
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
Hunt has been the one person who's been leading a decent opposition since 4th July.
Winds up something chronic that he's labelled as a "Wet" or "Remoaner" or effete Cameroon.
He's an effective Conservative.
His efforts to win his marginal seat demand respect. The fact the Tories dislike him says much about their current troubles. Head and shoulders above the likes of Truss. A serious old school street fighting Tory.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see the Tories taking on reform and defeating them rather than trying to accommodate them. Who is best placed of the current leadership to do that?
What such people really mean by "defeat" Reform, is make their arguments, policy and party go away by condemning and pwning them.
The actual way to really defeat them is to engage with the underlying issues, and that would mean to stop the boats and lower legal migration.
Which isn't what such people want: they want a satisfying evisceration and the status quo to continue.
The problem with populists like Reform is that they do not want to actually solve the issues they raise. They get their energy from ramping the problem and amplifying division, creating scapegoats. If one problem goes away they move onto another. There’s always someone to blame and win votes.
A Conservative Party needs to discredit their lazy platitudes and come up with solutions rather than gimmicks designed to achieve a good headline in the daily mail. You know, working for the good of the nation overall. Bringing people together. Old school one nation stuff.
If its solutions to this challenge, and other divisions like identity politics,then I fully agree with you.
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
AIUI, the relevant UK law says that weapons can't be exported if there is a risk that they might be used in violation of international law. By following the relevant processes, the government has determined that such a risk does indeed exist, which therefore means that the weapons can't be exported. I don't see how that is weird.
It is weird because why would there be a risk if it hasn't happened already. What has changed (apart from the UK government) that means now all of a sudden there is a clear risk. Presumably the Cons (and their legal advisors) didn't think there was a risk but now there is a risk.
Lammy says there is a risk that UK-supplied weapons might be used to commit violations of international law. Which implies that he thinks Israel is violating international law. So take them to the ICC.
Much as I consider Lammy the weakest of links (however smart he may be) it doesn't mean he thinks that they are *currently* violating international law. He could have intelligence about intended use, or extrapolating from public statements or whatever other criteria constitute the risk assessment.
The fact that this is occurring "after nearly a year" is also irrelevant. The previous Government (of fine, upstanding, hardworking, capable individuals feted for their successes on all stages) took one view. A few weeks later, another Government takes another view.
It should also be noted that the war has now shifted to The West Bank which has nothing to do with Gaza and where Israels actions are clearly both immoral AND illegal. There is not even the fig leaf of October 7th to hide behind. Lammy and the British government are are clearly trying to edge away from this while they still can.
This is well worth wathing. Peter Oborne from being a Thatcher disciple has now embedded himself in the West bank and is doing some serious reporting
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
NAFTA is bigger and more successful
And if the EU were *just* a trading block the UK should be a member
Top Trump volunteer in Mass. no longer with campaign after warning New Hampshire is ‘no longer a battleground state’ RNC says campaign remains on the ground in New Hampshire https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/02/nation/new-hampshire-battleground-2024-harris-trump/ ...Steve Stepanek, who leads Trump’s campaign in New Hampshire, said Mountain “obviously has no idea what is going on in NH because he is from Massachusetts” but did not respond to further questions.
Even as Mountain’s message rankled many of his fellow Republicans, who complained he was uninformed or speaking out of turn, it underscored deep concerns among some in the GOP that having Harris at the top of the ticket makes Democrats more competitive in swing states such as New Hampshire. Mountain declined an interview request.
New Hampshire is a purple state, with a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor, but it has not voted for a Republican for president in more than 20 years. This year, with Biden at the top of the ticket, the GOP there was optimistic about taking the state back for Trump.
But since Harris ascended to the top of the ticket and built new momentum on the Democratic side, the race in Republican reach states such as New Hampshire has appeared to tighten. A recent poll found Harris leading Trump in the state, and she is expected to appear in New Hampshire this week. The Cook Political Report recently moved the state from “lean” to “likely” Democratic, another indication of Harris’s strength there. Given that challenge, as well as how few electoral votes New Hampshire carries — just four — it may not be worth investing in, some New England Republicans quietly acknowledge...
Harris is 'expected to appear in New Hampshire this week'. Would Hilary Clinton have done so? Underlines the enthusiastic effort Harris, and Walz, are putting into the campaign.
And Good Morning everybody.
I noticed there were several Democratic events on Labour Day, with Harris, Walz and Biden - and Trump/Vance took the day off. That's tactically inept if they want to contest a state like Pennsylvania, where union membership is significantly above the national average.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
Ukraine will receive 36 Serbian MiG-29s through France, media reports
Serbia signed a contract with France for the purchase of 12 Rafale fighter jets for €3 billion. Part of the amount — $390 million — will be covered by the delivery of 36 MiG-29s to Paris. The fighters will arrive in France in December, and then will probably be handed over to Ukraine. Moscow was allegedly informed about this plan.
The Serbian MiG-29SE have an improved radar for simultaneous attack of two targets, the ability to use RVV-AE (R-77) missiles and an increased combat load of up to 4,000 kg. https://x.com/tweet4Anna_NAFO/status/1830617991018406253
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
"the treatment of Palestinian prisoners and the inadequate supply of humanitarian are two clearest breaches of international humanitarian law"
"there was a clear risk that British arms would be used to commit a serious breach".
It's a nuanced decision that probably satisfies no one.
They will never be a right time to take tough decisions against Israel and arguably this just increase the pressure a tiny bit on Netanyahu to accept the Bidean cease fire / hostage deal.
Its only weird if you see everything in black and white and wish to try and paint all politicians as weird.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
NAFTA is bigger and more successful
And if the EU were *just* a trading block the UK should be a member
"The EU is the largest trading bloc in the world, conforming of 27 member countries. It promotes the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people within its borders, creating a single request with over 446 million consumers. Innovated in 1951, the European Union is the world's most intertwined trade union.18 Dec 2023"
The conspiracy theory of churches being burnt in Europe by Muslims has spread to Nothern Ireland. X needs gagging before someone gets hurt.
A few years ago our local WEA ran a series of talks about Muslims in Britain. The speaker emphasised that as a (fairly low level) leader of the Muslim community, he wanted to co-operate with the rest of British society, not be part of a small, hostile enclave. It was very informative. I've still got the notes somewhere.
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
I don't remember a single person on here predicting Corbyn might win but happy to be corrected. Polling had the Tories on a lead of around 10 points for the last 4 months of the year, I don't think one had to possess hindsight or be Nostradamus to be making a safe prediction.
I do recognise the shat your pants principle whereby the 2017 GE made a lot of folk over fearful of something similar happening again.
I freely admit my pants were well shat until the exit poll came out.
Top Trump volunteer in Mass. no longer with campaign after warning New Hampshire is ‘no longer a battleground state’ RNC says campaign remains on the ground in New Hampshire https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/02/nation/new-hampshire-battleground-2024-harris-trump/ ...Steve Stepanek, who leads Trump’s campaign in New Hampshire, said Mountain “obviously has no idea what is going on in NH because he is from Massachusetts” but did not respond to further questions.
Even as Mountain’s message rankled many of his fellow Republicans, who complained he was uninformed or speaking out of turn, it underscored deep concerns among some in the GOP that having Harris at the top of the ticket makes Democrats more competitive in swing states such as New Hampshire. Mountain declined an interview request.
New Hampshire is a purple state, with a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor, but it has not voted for a Republican for president in more than 20 years. This year, with Biden at the top of the ticket, the GOP there was optimistic about taking the state back for Trump.
But since Harris ascended to the top of the ticket and built new momentum on the Democratic side, the race in Republican reach states such as New Hampshire has appeared to tighten. A recent poll found Harris leading Trump in the state, and she is expected to appear in New Hampshire this week. The Cook Political Report recently moved the state from “lean” to “likely” Democratic, another indication of Harris’s strength there. Given that challenge, as well as how few electoral votes New Hampshire carries — just four — it may not be worth investing in, some New England Republicans quietly acknowledge...
Harris is 'expected to appear in New Hampshire this week'. Would Hilary Clinton have done so? Underlines the enthusiastic effort Harris, and Walz, are putting into the campaign.
And Good Morning everybody.
Hillary Clinton did indeed hold a rally in New Hampshire, and visited the state 4 times between getting the nomination on June 7 2016 and election day.
The only state Trump visited that Clinton didn't was Wisconsin.
State with highest ad spend and most visits by both campaigns: Florida
Die Welt: For the first time in almost two years, EU countries purchased more gas from Russia than from the USA in a single quarter. From April to June, the EU bought 12.7 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia, compared to 12.3 billion cubic meters from the USA.
Top Trump volunteer in Mass. no longer with campaign after warning New Hampshire is ‘no longer a battleground state’ RNC says campaign remains on the ground in New Hampshire https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/02/nation/new-hampshire-battleground-2024-harris-trump/ ...Steve Stepanek, who leads Trump’s campaign in New Hampshire, said Mountain “obviously has no idea what is going on in NH because he is from Massachusetts” but did not respond to further questions.
Even as Mountain’s message rankled many of his fellow Republicans, who complained he was uninformed or speaking out of turn, it underscored deep concerns among some in the GOP that having Harris at the top of the ticket makes Democrats more competitive in swing states such as New Hampshire. Mountain declined an interview request.
New Hampshire is a purple state, with a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor, but it has not voted for a Republican for president in more than 20 years. This year, with Biden at the top of the ticket, the GOP there was optimistic about taking the state back for Trump.
But since Harris ascended to the top of the ticket and built new momentum on the Democratic side, the race in Republican reach states such as New Hampshire has appeared to tighten. A recent poll found Harris leading Trump in the state, and she is expected to appear in New Hampshire this week. The Cook Political Report recently moved the state from “lean” to “likely” Democratic, another indication of Harris’s strength there. Given that challenge, as well as how few electoral votes New Hampshire carries — just four — it may not be worth investing in, some New England Republicans quietly acknowledge...
Harris is 'expected to appear in New Hampshire this week'. Would Hilary Clinton have done so? Underlines the enthusiastic effort Harris, and Walz, are putting into the campaign.
And Good Morning everybody.
Hillary Clinton did indeed hold a rally in New Hampshire, and visited the state 4 times between getting the nomination on June 7 2016 and election day.
The only state Trump visited that Clinton didn't was Wisconsin.
State with highest ad spend and most visits by both campaigns: Florida
That's interesting. Thanks. Gives a different perspective on what I understood to be the situation; that Clinton only visited states that were likely to be supportive.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
Hunt has been the one person who's been leading a decent opposition since 4th July.
Winds up something chronic that he's labelled as a "Wet" or "Remoaner" or effete Cameroon.
He's an effective Conservative.
His efforts to win his marginal seat demand respect. The fact the Tories dislike him says much about their current troubles. Head and shoulders above the likes of Truss. A serious old school street fighting Tory.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see the Tories taking on reform and defeating them rather than trying to accommodate them. Who is best placed of the current leadership to do that?
Both Tugendhat and Cleverly have military backgrounds and achieved rank of Lt-Col. Could be useful reminder in any head-to-head with Farage.
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
I don't remember a single person on here predicting Corbyn might win but happy to be corrected. Polling had the Tories on a lead of around 10 points for the last 4 months of the year, I don't think one had to possess hindsight or be Nostradamus to be making a safe prediction.
I do recognise the shat your pants principle whereby the 2017 GE made a lot of folk over fearful of something similar happening again.
Yeah elections are always super predictable I don't know why they don't just appoint the new government four months out once the polls settle down.
The conspiracy theory of churches being burnt in Europe by Muslims has spread to Nothern Ireland. X needs gagging before someone gets hurt.
A few years ago our local WEA ran a series of talks about Muslims in Britain. The speaker emphasised that as a (fairly low level) leader of the Muslim community, he wanted to co-operate with the rest of British society, not be part of a small, hostile enclave. It was very informative. I've still got the notes somewhere.
A serious problem is that, for quite a while, the U.K. government, at various levels, took their policy on “Community Leaders” from Northern Ireland.
The most aggressive, threatening and generally unpleasant got listened to first. Taking little account of actual support.
Thankfully this is changing. But some of it was quite incredible.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
It's possible that the IHT transfer provision will be abolished. But it affects huge numbers of people potentially to the tune of 40% of £325K. When you conside the fuss there has been over removing £200 WFA from pensioners (our Christmas champagne fund) the consequence would be interesting.
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
AIUI, the relevant UK law says that weapons can't be exported if there is a risk that they might be used in violation of international law. By following the relevant processes, the government has determined that such a risk does indeed exist, which therefore means that the weapons can't be exported. I don't see how that is weird.
It is weird because why would there be a risk if it hasn't happened already. What has changed (apart from the UK government) that means now all of a sudden there is a clear risk. Presumably the Cons (and their legal advisors) didn't think there was a risk but now there is a risk.
Lammy says there is a risk that UK-supplied weapons might be used to commit violations of international law. Which implies that he thinks Israel is violating international law. So take them to the ICC.
Much as I consider Lammy the weakest of links (however smart he may be) it doesn't mean he thinks that they are *currently* violating international law. He could have intelligence about intended use, or extrapolating from public statements or whatever other criteria constitute the risk assessment.
The fact that this is occurring "after nearly a year" is also irrelevant. The previous Government (of fine, upstanding, hardworking, capable individuals feted for their successes on all stages) took one view. A few weeks later, another Government takes another view.
It should also be noted that the war has now shifted to The West Bank which has nothing to do with Gaza and where Israels actions are clearly both immoral AND illegal. There is not even the fig leaf of October 7th to hide behind. Lammy and the British government are are clearly trying to edge away from this while they still can.
This is well worth wathing. Peter Oborne from being a Thatcher disciple has now embedded himself in the West bank and is doing some serious reporting
Ukraine will receive 36 Serbian MiG-29s through France, media reports
Serbia signed a contract with France for the purchase of 12 Rafale fighter jets for €3 billion. Part of the amount — $390 million — will be covered by the delivery of 36 MiG-29s to Paris. The fighters will arrive in France in December, and then will probably be handed over to Ukraine. Moscow was allegedly informed about this plan.
The Serbian MiG-29SE have an improved radar for simultaneous attack of two targets, the ability to use RVV-AE (R-77) missiles and an increased combat load of up to 4,000 kg. https://x.com/tweet4Anna_NAFO/status/1830617991018406253
That number sounds a bit dodgy. Wikipedia: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence – 14 MiG-29s (5 MiG-29Аs, 3 MiG-29Bs,[250] 3 MiG-29Ss, 3 MiG-29UBs) in inventory as of 2022, 11 of which are modernized to the advanced MiG-29SMT standards while 3 (MiG-29UB) are used as a conversion trainer...
Ukraine will receive 36 Serbian MiG-29s through France, media reports
Serbia signed a contract with France for the purchase of 12 Rafale fighter jets for €3 billion. Part of the amount — $390 million — will be covered by the delivery of 36 MiG-29s to Paris. The fighters will arrive in France in December, and then will probably be handed over to Ukraine. Moscow was allegedly informed about this plan.
The Serbian MiG-29SE have an improved radar for simultaneous attack of two targets, the ability to use RVV-AE (R-77) missiles and an increased combat load of up to 4,000 kg. https://x.com/tweet4Anna_NAFO/status/1830617991018406253
This must be true, obviously, because it's on Xchan but the Serbian Air Force only has 10-14 Fulcrums depending on who you believe.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
Why? That's the important question.
[Stupid answers like "The Tories", "Brexit" or "Gordon Brown", will be ignored.]
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
Almost verges on the faintly misleading to be green ticking that lot at this stage, Shirley?
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
AIUI, the relevant UK law says that weapons can't be exported if there is a risk that they might be used in violation of international law. By following the relevant processes, the government has determined that such a risk does indeed exist, which therefore means that the weapons can't be exported. I don't see how that is weird.
It is weird because why would there be a risk if it hasn't happened already. What has changed (apart from the UK government) that means now all of a sudden there is a clear risk. Presumably the Cons (and their legal advisors) didn't think there was a risk but now there is a risk.
Lammy says there is a risk that UK-supplied weapons might be used to commit violations of international law. Which implies that he thinks Israel is violating international law. So take them to the ICC.
Much as I consider Lammy the weakest of links (however smart he may be) it doesn't mean he thinks that they are *currently* violating international law. He could have intelligence about intended use, or extrapolating from public statements or whatever other criteria constitute the risk assessment.
The fact that this is occurring "after nearly a year" is also irrelevant. The previous Government (of fine, upstanding, hardworking, capable individuals feted for their successes on all stages) took one view. A few weeks later, another Government takes another view.
It should also be noted that the war has now shifted to The West Bank which has nothing to do with Gaza and where Israels actions are clearly both immoral AND illegal. There is not even the fig leaf of October 7th to hide behind. Lammy and the British government are are clearly trying to edge away from this while they still can.
This is well worth wathing. Peter Oborne from being a Thatcher disciple has now embedded himself in the West bank and is doing some serious reporting
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
Sadly, there are a few on PB who would vote for the fascist.
I don't see any evidence for that.
I wouldn't plump for him but Nigel Farage isn't a fascist.
Has @BartholomewRoberts commented on Labour starting to pull the plug on arms for Israel?
I think it's an utter disgrace and Labour is pandering to pro Hamas voters.
Israel has a right to defend itself.
It's both performative and weird.
Either Lab thinks Israel is committing war crimes or it doesn't.
If it does then it should go down that track a la Sth Africa. If not then what is it up to.
It's acting on the legal advice it received. You're entitled to disagree with the advice, but it's not 'weird'.
He (Lammy) said that this is not a comment on whether Israel has violated international law just that "there does exist a clear risk" that they might.
Why is there a "clear risk", after nearly a year. Either Israel is violating the law in which case fine, or it is not, in which case what's the problem.
To say that there is a "clear risk" suggests that you think they have already done so, in which case line up with South Africa and Ireland and take your case to the ICC.
As I say, weird.
"the treatment of Palestinian prisoners and the inadequate supply of humanitarian are two clearest breaches of international humanitarian law"
"there was a clear risk that British arms would be used to commit a serious breach".
It's a nuanced decision that probably satisfies no one.
They will never be a right time to take tough decisions against Israel and arguably this just increase the pressure a tiny bit on Netanyahu to accept the Bidean cease fire / hostage deal.
Its only weird if you see everything in black and white and wish to try and paint all politicians as weird.
Where's your first quote from, the one about treatment of Palestinian prisoners?
The government's summary says: "There have been credible claims of the mistreatment of detainees...suggest at least some instances of mistreatment contrary to IHL."
Concerns about "Treatment of Detainees" is one of the three factors driving the summary.
The other two are "Humanitarian" and "Conduct of Hostilities".
wrt this latter, the summary states: "...it has not been possible to reach a determinative judgment on allegations regarding Israel's conduct of hostilities."
So in all, nothing which says they have breached IHL and in particular nothing where UK-supplied weapons might be used to violate IHL.
Die Welt: For the first time in almost two years, EU countries purchased more gas from Russia than from the USA in a single quarter. From April to June, the EU bought 12.7 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia, compared to 12.3 billion cubic meters from the USA.
Due to imports from the USA falling quicker than imports from Russia. Norway supplies about as much as both US and Russia put together.
A big chunk of that Russian gas is supplied via Ukraine, and the rest through Turkey, plus LNG.
Mr. Divvie, " Are you sure? Many on here expiate their guilt over voting for Boris by saying it was for risk of PM Jezza reasons."
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
Sadly, there are a few on PB who would vote for the fascist.
I don't see any evidence for that.
I wouldn't plump for him but Nigel Farage isn't a fascist.
Sorry, CR, I am unclear what you are disputing. If you're disputing whether Farage is a fascist, I didn't call Nigel Farage a fascist.
If you're disputing whether a few on PB would vote for a fascist, I would point you to the posts defending far right conspiracy theories, praising various fascists around the world, etc.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
Why? That's the important question.
[Stupid answers like "The Tories", "Brexit" or "Gordon Brown", will be ignored.]
The biggest immediate factor making much of Europe poorer is the war in Ukraine. Hence the BSW recent election campaign being all about "peace" in Ukraine.
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
I didn't read the rest.
"IDS was right."
Sorry if that triggered you...
No, you're not; and it didn't. It merely coloured the rest of your comment. Which I bothered to read.
My view is not so much that it is the main party that occupies "the centre ground", more that it is the leader who appears to be closest to it. Hence Margaret Thatcher was closer than Foot and Kinnock, Major closer than Kinnock, Blair v Major (arguable), Cameron v Milibland, The Clown v Mr Thicky, and ultimately Sir Keir Boring v Sunak.
Normally, but in 1979 though Callaghan was closer to the 'centre ground' than Thatcher. In 1974 and 1966 Heath was closer to the 'centre ground' than Wilson. In 1945 and 1950 Churchill was also arguably closer to the 'centre ground' than Attlee
I think I would argue against the case for Churchill and the centre ground in 1945 - the consensus had shifted from the Conservatives and they were playing "me too" with Atlee who had essentially been the "home" PM for several years by that stage. I think we often mistake the extent to which the 1945 result was the public voting for "continuity" - but with the "wartime arm" of government removed.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
Why? That's the important question.
[Stupid answers like "The Tories", "Brexit" or "Gordon Brown", will be ignored.]
The biggest immediate factor making much of Europe poorer is the war in Ukraine. Hence the BSW recent election campaign being all about "peace" in Ukraine.
The biggest single obstacle to peace in Ukraine, is Germany and the attitude of their politicians.
Flying Russian flags over Kiev and now hurry up and get the oil pumping again, isn’t “peace” for the Ukranians. Quite the opposite.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
I didn't know PBers had such good connections with No. 11.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
Why? That's the important question.
[Stupid answers like "The Tories", "Brexit" or "Gordon Brown", will be ignored.]
This is why, the US economy has boomed but it is wholly fuelled by borrowing. The US has let go of any pretence of fiscal sanity because the markets have the unshakeable belief that treasuries are a one way bet (which might be true) so it gives the US government the ability to just borrow their way to much higher growth than is possible for European countries.
Ukraine will receive 36 Serbian MiG-29s through France, media reports
Serbia signed a contract with France for the purchase of 12 Rafale fighter jets for €3 billion. Part of the amount — $390 million — will be covered by the delivery of 36 MiG-29s to Paris. The fighters will arrive in France in December, and then will probably be handed over to Ukraine. Moscow was allegedly informed about this plan.
The Serbian MiG-29SE have an improved radar for simultaneous attack of two targets, the ability to use RVV-AE (R-77) missiles and an increased combat load of up to 4,000 kg. https://x.com/tweet4Anna_NAFO/status/1830617991018406253
That number sounds a bit dodgy. Wikipedia: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence – 14 MiG-29s (5 MiG-29Аs, 3 MiG-29Bs,[250] 3 MiG-29Ss, 3 MiG-29UBs) in inventory as of 2022, 11 of which are modernized to the advanced MiG-29SMT standards while 3 (MiG-29UB) are used as a conversion trainer...
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Reversing Osborne's IHT cut and the married transfer would also be the biggest gift from a PM to an opposition leader since May's dementia tax gift to Corbyn in 2017. I can't believe Starmer and Reeves would be that stupid, it would be a dream start for the new Tory leader as it would be hugely unpopular
When you survey attitudes to various topics - the one I'm thinking of is the recent riots but there are others - Reform supporters are usually the outliers. Conservatives tend to be in the mainstream along with Labour and the Lib Dem supporters. Which makes me think tacking in the direction of "common sense" may not be the most rewarding approach for the Tories.
IDS said something like "we shouldn't aim for the center ground, but the common ground"
The problem being he couldn't find common ground with GPS
IDS was right.
Common ground shifts all the time and its your job to stake it out, shape it, lead it and define it so you can win a majority/strong plurality of voters.
Centre ground is passive and means being mushy, following consensus, or just splitting the difference on policy.
What a load of bollocks.
We frequently discussed how left/right has become less useful as a political metric over the years, not least as it doesn't define where parties stand on issue that actually matter to the country.
Industrial policy is an excellent example. Governments of both right and left have for many decades failed (or avoided even trying) to implement successful industrial policy. While other nations have managed to do so under governments of both right and left.
On of the reasons for the disillusion with political parties is that people like you define politics to entrench their position in the two party hegemony that's governed the country for most of the last century. And in doing so have completely ignored things which might have led to better government.
Gentle tip: if you want an audience for your point of view don't start your response with "what a load of bollocks".
I didn't read the rest.
"IDS was right."
Sorry if that triggered you...
No, you're not; and it didn't. It merely coloured the rest of your comment. Which I bothered to read.
My view is not so much that it is the main party that occupies "the centre ground", more that it is the leader who appears to be closest to it. Hence Margaret Thatcher was closer than Foot and Kinnock, Major closer than Kinnock, Blair v Major (arguable), Cameron v Milibland, The Clown v Mr Thicky, and ultimately Sir Keir Boring v Sunak.
Normally, but in 1979 though Callaghan was closer to the 'centre ground' than Thatcher. In 1974 and 1966 Heath was closer to the 'centre ground' than Wilson. In 1945 and 1950 Churchill was also arguably closer to the 'centre ground' than Attlee
I think I would argue against the case for Churchill and the centre ground in 1945 - the consensus had shifted from the Conservatives and they were playing "me too" with Atlee who had essentially been the "home" PM for several years by that stage. I think we often mistake the extent to which the 1945 result was the public voting for "continuity" - but with the "wartime arm" of government removed.
Attlee had the 'common ground' of the time then even if not the ideological centre ground
Ukraine will receive 36 Serbian MiG-29s through France, media reports
Serbia signed a contract with France for the purchase of 12 Rafale fighter jets for €3 billion. Part of the amount — $390 million — will be covered by the delivery of 36 MiG-29s to Paris. The fighters will arrive in France in December, and then will probably be handed over to Ukraine. Moscow was allegedly informed about this plan.
The Serbian MiG-29SE have an improved radar for simultaneous attack of two targets, the ability to use RVV-AE (R-77) missiles and an increased combat load of up to 4,000 kg. https://x.com/tweet4Anna_NAFO/status/1830617991018406253
That number sounds a bit dodgy. Wikipedia: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence – 14 MiG-29s (5 MiG-29Аs, 3 MiG-29Bs,[250] 3 MiG-29Ss, 3 MiG-29UBs) in inventory as of 2022, 11 of which are modernized to the advanced MiG-29SMT standards while 3 (MiG-29UB) are used as a conversion trainer...
I could believe "3-6" and a misreading.
We know Serbia is buying Rafales, but I can't see any media reports saying anything about MiG-29s going to Paris and then Ukraine.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
They can't do the last one, it would mean widows being forced to sell their homes to pay IHT bills. The idea is repugnant. They will get rid of the 7 year gift rule though, or extend the taper to 10 or 15 years and they will definitely get rid of the IHT exemption on pensions (rightly tbf).
Is it not the transfer of allowance that could be removed - ie if you don't use any allowance inheriting from your spouse, it can be used for children.
So, excluding a home the threshold for children would go from 650k to 325k.
An extra 130k in tax if you were previously expecting to be at the threshold.
Tories first job is to understand why they lost heartland seats like Chichester and Horsham, which they held for 100+ years. If they can’t win here, why bother?
My hunch is that is wasn’t because they were not right ring or Brexity enough. Hunt managed to hang on. Perhaps they might ask him.
As Cicero says (that sounds good!) the Tories will forever be the Party of Brexit and Rwanda. They will hang round the Tories necks like rotten fish and Suez and no amount of shaking will make it disappear. The only caveat being that the EU implodes but that is extremely unlikely as it's now the biggest and most successful trading block in the world with countries desperate to join.
“Western Europeans fail to understand the extent to which they were f*cked by the 2008 subprime crisis.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
Why? That's the important question.
[Stupid answers like "The Tories", "Brexit" or "Gordon Brown", will be ignored.]
The biggest immediate factor making much of Europe poorer is the war in Ukraine. Hence the BSW recent election campaign being all about "peace" in Ukraine.
The biggest single obstacle to peace in Ukraine, is Germany and the attitude of their politicians.
Flying Russian flags over Kiev and now hurry up and get the oil pumping again, isn’t “peace” for the Ukranians. Quite the opposite.
And yet Germany has given a lot more to Ukraine since the Russian invasion than, for example, the UK, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making with 'the biggest single obstacle to peace in Ukraine, is Germany'
Ukraine will receive 36 Serbian MiG-29s through France, media reports
Serbia signed a contract with France for the purchase of 12 Rafale fighter jets for €3 billion. Part of the amount — $390 million — will be covered by the delivery of 36 MiG-29s to Paris. The fighters will arrive in France in December, and then will probably be handed over to Ukraine. Moscow was allegedly informed about this plan.
The Serbian MiG-29SE have an improved radar for simultaneous attack of two targets, the ability to use RVV-AE (R-77) missiles and an increased combat load of up to 4,000 kg. https://x.com/tweet4Anna_NAFO/status/1830617991018406253
This must be true, obviously, because it's on Xchan but the Serbian Air Force only has 10-14 Fulcrums depending on who you believe.
Comments
I didn't read the rest.
You too are occasionally right about stuff.
The actual way to really defeat them is to engage with the underlying issues, and that would mean to stop the boats and lower legal migration.
Which isn't what such people want: they want a satisfying evisceration and the status quo to continue.
And if it was beyond reach for Jezza (I'm sure all the @bjos of the site tell us that he actually won the election) then so be it. It was just a chance I couldn't take.
Hunt is getting traction because he's pointing out Labour's hypocrisy in blaming him for policy choices they'd already made but kept quiet about during the election, and people can see that with public sector pay.
His Glasgow Easterhouse visit was a good move and an important one.
It's actually quite extraordinary: if you take the example of France in 2008 we were almost on par with the US in GDP per capita, $45.5k vs $48.5k, a small 6% difference.
Fast forward to 2023, 15 year later, and we still haven't recovered: we're at $44.4k GDP per capita, still lower than in 2008! Meanwhile the US is now at $81.6k or almost double what we are: from 6% difference to 100% difference in just 15 years...”
https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1830816765611590043?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
He’s ignoring FX rates but the point is still pretty good. Europe is NOT massively successful - and I’m not sure it is the biggest trading bloc any more either
The French vote for Le Pen and the Germans vote for the AdF for reasons, and they’re not all about migration. They sense relative decline. Germany in particular is in deep shit now and that’s the engine of the EU
With hindsight, I can also predict the lottery numbers (and actually get some F1 bets right).
I don't feel guilt for voting Conservative in 2019. The alternative would have been far worse. Likewise, in a contest between a fascist and Starmer I'd vote Labour without a qualm, if I feared the fascist had a chance of winning.
A Conservative Party needs to discredit their lazy platitudes and come up with solutions rather than gimmicks designed to achieve a good headline in the daily mail. You know, working for the good of the nation overall. Bringing people together. Old school one nation stuff.
Is there a paper on the wetness of water, next?
https://youtu.be/xmEhTFjQB1g?si=kY2BgxrBodUwJMgq
https://x.com/DGComedy/status/1830550478981156914
Any member of Reform and the Tories risks losing voters to a new/different party of the right, as well as losing voters to the centre (20% of Tory voters think the Tories/Lib Dems are similar).
It's a tough situation for the Tories.
They are holding him responsible for the state of the finances they inherited.
We will judge them in due course on the outcomes of their policies. A scant two months after they entered government is a little early for that.
From an LD perspective, the biggest disconnect between how our voters see us, and how other parties' voters see us, is with the Greens.
My take from this that we should stop "playing nicely" with the Greens.
This is already the case in Scotland.
It merely coloured the rest of your comment. Which I bothered to read.
One of those options is much better for the country than the other.
RNC says campaign remains on the ground in New Hampshire
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/02/nation/new-hampshire-battleground-2024-harris-trump/
...Steve Stepanek, who leads Trump’s campaign in New Hampshire, said Mountain “obviously has no idea what is going on in NH because he is from Massachusetts” but did not respond to further questions.
Even as Mountain’s message rankled many of his fellow Republicans, who complained he was uninformed or speaking out of turn, it underscored deep concerns among some in the GOP that having Harris at the top of the ticket makes Democrats more competitive in swing states such as New Hampshire. Mountain declined an interview request.
New Hampshire is a purple state, with a Democratic congressional delegation and a Republican governor, but it has not voted for a Republican for president in more than 20 years. This year, with Biden at the top of the ticket, the GOP there was optimistic about taking the state back for Trump.
But since Harris ascended to the top of the ticket and built new momentum on the Democratic side, the race in Republican reach states such as New Hampshire has appeared to tighten. A recent poll found Harris leading Trump in the state, and she is expected to appear in New Hampshire this week. The Cook Political Report recently moved the state from “lean” to “likely” Democratic, another indication of Harris’s strength there. Given that challenge, as well as how few electoral votes New Hampshire carries — just four — it may not be worth investing in, some New England Republicans quietly acknowledge...
I do recognise the shat your pants principle whereby the 2017 GE made a lot of folk over fearful of something similar happening again.
✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners
✅ VAT on private school fees
✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
"There are thought to be hundreds of wild beavers living “illegally” in English rivers and more than 1,000 in Scotland."
I think I'm too politically engaged to bring any wisdom on the topic. Parties are broad coalitions and naturally there are areas where they overlap. It doesn't make them "the same" or "similar" just a recognition there is a commonality on some topics across some parties some of the time.
There's a secondary issue about Party "culture" and how said parties are seen to operate. How parties are perceived is often less about what they say than how they say it (Stodge's Twelfth Law of Politics). My personal experience from my activist days in the Alliance was when I encountered Conservative and Labour activists at elections or when out delivering/canvassing I always found them friendly and interesting - it was almost as though we were colleagues doing the same job in different organisations, there was a mutual understanding and respect.
Some members from opposing parties were pretty hostile if you canvassed them (you knew where some where but if one had recently moved into the Ward and you didn't know..) and could be quite aggressive and rude. The most hostile were often the recent converts from other parties (especially yours). I never found that with the actual activists.
Underlines the enthusiastic effort Harris, and Walz, are putting into the campaign.
And Good Morning everybody.
None of them have filled out any forms, before emigrating into British rivers. They have even constructed homes without planning permission, and completing reports on the effects of their homes on water quality, equality, disability access etc etc.
The planning departments of the various local councils?
We have illegal modification of waterways, destruction of natural habitat, unplanned home construction…..
Fines are not enough. Lock the environmental terrorists up!
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
We routinely export weapons to the USA, who are quite willing to violate international law, and are not even signed up to a fair chunk of it.
I think that's indicative of certain problems with international law, and treaties we are signed up to - which may imo be questionable in changed global circumstances. An example is perhaps the ban on cluster munitions, which had the USA been as fully signed up as we are would have weakened Ukrained.
Today is imo more morally ambiguous than yesterday; I am glad these are not decisions I have to make.
Boris won the other way round, he lost some Remainers to the LDs but won almost all the UKIP 2015 vote and added a few Labour Leave voters who voted for Miliband in 2015
Consumption levels per country give a much better indicator:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/actualindividualconsumptionperheadintheuk/2020
And a very good morning to you too, OKC.
It should also be noted that the war has now shifted to The West Bank which has nothing to do with Gaza and where Israels actions are clearly both immoral AND illegal. There is not even the fig leaf of October 7th to hide behind. Lammy and the British government are are clearly trying to edge away from this while they still can.
This is well worth watching. Peter Oborne from being a Thatcher disciple has now embedded himself in the West bank and is doing some serious reporting
https://x.com/naomi4labnec/status/1830037267483603012?s=43
And if the EU were *just* a trading block the UK should be a member
https://unherd.com/2024/09/how-the-democrats-can-win-the-rust-belt/
✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p
✅ Additional rate up to 50p
✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
Serbia signed a contract with France for the purchase of 12 Rafale fighter jets for €3 billion. Part of the amount — $390 million — will be covered by the delivery of 36 MiG-29s to Paris. The fighters will arrive in France in December, and then will probably be handed over to Ukraine. Moscow was allegedly informed about this plan.
The Serbian MiG-29SE have an improved radar for simultaneous attack of two targets, the ability to use RVV-AE (R-77) missiles and an increased combat load of up to 4,000 kg.
https://x.com/tweet4Anna_NAFO/status/1830617991018406253
"there was a clear risk that British arms would be used to commit a serious breach".
It's a nuanced decision that probably satisfies no one.
They will never be a right time to take tough decisions against Israel and arguably this just increase the pressure a tiny bit on Netanyahu to accept the Bidean cease fire / hostage deal.
Its only weird if you see everything in black and white and wish to try and paint all politicians as weird.
It was very informative. I've still got the notes somewhere.
The only state Trump visited that Clinton didn't was Wisconsin.
State with highest ad spend and most visits by both campaigns: Florida
source:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story?id=43356783
Die Welt: For the first time in almost two years, EU countries purchased more gas from Russia than from the USA in a single quarter. From April to June, the EU bought 12.7 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia, compared to 12.3 billion cubic meters from the USA.
The most aggressive, threatening and generally unpleasant got listened to first. Taking little account of actual support.
Thankfully this is changing. But some of it was quite incredible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfJFeU2m_k
Wikipedia:
Serbian Air Force and Air Defence – 14 MiG-29s (5 MiG-29Аs, 3 MiG-29Bs,[250] 3 MiG-29Ss, 3 MiG-29UBs) in inventory as of 2022, 11 of which are modernized to the advanced MiG-29SMT standards while 3 (MiG-29UB) are used as a conversion trainer...
[Stupid answers like "The Tories", "Brexit" or "Gordon Brown", will be ignored.]
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-prime-ministers-who-have-restricted-arms-sales-israel
I wouldn't plump for him but Nigel Farage isn't a fascist.
The government's summary says: "There have been credible claims of the mistreatment of detainees...suggest at least some instances of mistreatment contrary to IHL."
Concerns about "Treatment of Detainees" is one of the three factors driving the summary.
The other two are "Humanitarian" and "Conduct of Hostilities".
wrt this latter, the summary states: "...it has not been possible to reach a determinative judgment on allegations regarding Israel's conduct of hostilities."
So in all, nothing which says they have breached IHL and in particular nothing where UK-supplied weapons might be used to violate IHL.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-the-international-humanitarian-law-ihl-process-decision-and-the-factors-taken-into-account/summary-of-the-ihl-process-decision-and-the-factors-taken-into-account
A big chunk of that Russian gas is supplied via Ukraine, and the rest through Turkey, plus LNG.
If you're disputing whether a few on PB would vote for a fascist, I would point you to the posts defending far right conspiracy theories, praising various fascists around the world, etc.
Flying Russian flags over Kiev and now hurry up and get the oil pumping again, isn’t “peace” for the Ukranians. Quite the opposite.
This is why, the US economy has boomed but it is wholly fuelled by borrowing. The US has let go of any pretence of fiscal sanity because the markets have the unshakeable belief that treasuries are a one way bet (which might be true) so it gives the US government the ability to just borrow their way to much higher growth than is possible for European countries.
So, excluding a home the threshold for children would go from 650k to 325k.
An extra 130k in tax if you were previously expecting to be at the threshold.